(01-28-2024 03:52 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 10:42 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 08:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 03:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 12:22 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  Better for the owner maybe, but not the NFL and the suffering and missing fans and the TV/radio/... networks. And advertisers.

Many players, I'd guess, would prefer to live+work elsewhere too. Especially in no-income-tax states such as TX. Owners, employees, etc. too?

The NFL is its ownership. It’s more valuable for the NFL owners to have Jerry Jones and the Cowboys cover San Antonio and Oklahoma City than it is to split that fan base up. Also, I don’t think a lot of people still quite understand just how huge the NYC and LA markets by themselves. They are larger than every *state* outside of Texas and Florida (along with their own home states of New York and California) and, not insignificantly, those two markets have among the highest concentrations of wealth of any metro areas in the entire world. Those are wholly unique situations, which is why every pro sports league has at least 2 teams in each of those markets (and even a 3rd in the case of the NHL with the NYC market).

The actual numbers are 19,557,000 for NYC and 17,540,000 for LA (when you include Riverside which alone is bigger than all but 11 metros). Chicago is a distant 3rd at 9,274,000, then DFW at 7,944,000 and Houston at 7,368,000.

Metropolitan Statistical Areas with over 3 million population:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolit...uerto_Rico
Metropolitan statistical area 2022
estimate 2020
census %
change Encompassing combined statistical area

New York–Newark–Jersey City, NY-NJ MSA 19,557,311 20,081,935 −2.61% New York–Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA MSA 12,872,322 13,200,998 −2.49% Los Angeles–Long Beach, CA CSA
Chicago–Naperville–Elgin, IL-IN MSA 9,274,140 9,449,351 −1.85% Chicago–Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA
Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX MSA 7,943,685 7,637,387 +4.01% Dallas–Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA
Houston–Pasadena–The Woodlands, TX MSA 7,368,466 7,149,642 +3.06% Houston–Pasadena, TX CSA
Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA 6,265,183 6,278,542 −0.21% Washington–Baltimore–Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA
Philadelphia–Camden–Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA 6,241,164 6,245,051 −0.06% Philadelphia–Reading–Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA
Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Roswell, GA MSA 6,237,435 6,104,803 +2.17% Atlanta–Athens-Clarke County–Sandy Springs, GA-AL CSA
Miami–Fort Lauderdale–West Palm Beach, FL MSA 6,139,340 6,138,333 +0.02% Miami–Port St. Lucie–Fort Lauderdale, FL CSA
Phoenix–Mesa–Chandler, AZ MSA 5,015,678 4,845,832 +3.50% Phoenix–Mesa, AZ CSA
Boston–Cambridge–Newton, MA-NH MSA 4,900,550 4,941,632 −0.83% Boston–Worcester–Providence, MA-RI-NH CSA
Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario, CA MSA 4,667,558 4,599,839 +1.47% Los Angeles–Long Beach, CA CSA
San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont, CA MSA 4,579,599 4,749,008 −3.57% San Jose–San Francisco–Oakland, CA CSA
Detroit–Warren–Dearborn, MI MSA 4,345,761 4,392,041 −1.05% Detroit–Warren–Ann Arbor, MI CSA
Seattle–Tacoma–Bellevue, WA MSA 4,034,248 4,018,762 +0.39% Seattle–Tacoma, WA CSA
Minneapolis–St. Paul–Bloomington, MN-WI MSA 3,693,729 3,690,261 +0.09% Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN-WI CSA
Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA 3,290,730 3,175,275 +3.64%
San Diego–Chula Vista–Carlsbad, CA MSA 3,276,208 3,298,634 −0.68%

As you noted, LA's numbers are misleading (and for that matter, so is San Francisco's). As someone born in the supposed Riverside-San Bernardino metro area, let me express bluntly that there is no such thing. I mean, High Desert is its own thing and all those areas toward Las Vegas and Arizona aren't really LA metro but pretty much everything in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties with some sizable population feels a direct connection to LA, particularly the I-10 corridor. It's so connected to LA that the Inland Empire, as it's colloquially called, is mostly covered by LA media.

And San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose are separated only by the Census Bureau's funky commuter statistics. There's no break in development on any side of the Bay except maybe in the north in Wine Country, and San Jose is so close to the other cities that the A's nearly moved there and their season ticket holders would have been mostly the same.

A lot of San Diegans moved to the Temecula and Murrieta region in the 80s and 90s because housing prices were so much lower. I know the PAC12 claimed the Riverside area as part of their DMA but I would question that. Both of those regions seem to have more in common with San Diego County than LA County.

Never spent much time in Riverside or Riverside County (as a matter of fact, I may have never been in all my time living in and visiting California) but most of San Bernardino County, especially the I-10 corridor, is suburban outgrowth of LA. That much I know.

(01-28-2024 04:00 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 11:07 PM)C2__ Wrote:  The NFL would also be looking at places like Germany and Brazil. To keep the symmetry of the scheduling arrangement the league has, the next time they expand, it'll likely have to be by 8, 1 for each division (it wouldn't work that way per se, as they'd likely have to move teams around to different divisions depending upon where they expand but the point is there'd still be 8 divisions, then with 5 instead of 4 apiece).

And no way would the NFL put 2 teams in a single foreign market unless they became so enraptured in football that the league could justify it. The first team would have to prove itself before any of that extra motion.

London has SEVEN premier league teams. Chelsea sold for $5.4b a couple years ago, that would put them at #13 in the NFL today. Arsenal might be worth more, and Tottenham is certainly valued in the multiple Billions. London has the added benefit of cool "Britishness" and ofc the language. However, London is the only city quite like that, and you might be right about Mexico City and any other foreign location.

American football is still not popular enough for two teams in the same league. Prove to me otherwise.

I can buy 2 British teams but not 2 in the same city, even as massive and wealthy as London is.

(01-28-2024 04:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 03:45 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 06:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 11:10 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 10:57 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  Or, better yet, they or the NFL need to "realign" either the Chargers back to San Diego, or the Rams back to St. Louis.

And the Jets need to find a big city that's not served either. San Antonio, OKC, SLC, or Mexico City?

The Chargers have never belonged in LA, IMO.

The Chargers started in LA in 1960, then moved to San Diego in 1961. When the Raiders moved to LA in 1982 from Oakland, there were three NFL teams in Southern California. The Raiders in LA County, the Rams in Orange County, and Chargers in San Diego County. The SoCal area can handle three NFL teams. All three teams wanted better stadium deals or new stadiums. The public money was not there to make the deals work, and all three left their locations. It took a billionaire to build SoFi Stadium without public money.

Without the Raiders in town, Los Angeles became a secondary TV market of the Chargers during their time in San Diego, and KCBS in Los Angeles was required to carry the Chargers Road games. We also got most of their home games. So, the Chargers are not really new to the city. They had a training camp in Carson for a few years. There is only 120 miles separating LA and San Diego, so it is not like you have to stop in San Clemente and ask for directions to either city.

San Diego is America's finest city, and they have great sports fans. I hope they get an NHL or NBA team down there in the next few years, but the Chargers are not going back.

Kronke is now involved in the "Midway Rising " project which is a development that includes a new 16,000 seat arena where the existing arena is. If I could choose, I would prefer an NHL franchise over an NBA one. There was once talk of the Arizona franchise moving to San Diego - they play in something like a 6K seat arena. 16K seats would be on the lower end of capcity when it comes to arenas but I'm sure they could add seats. However, sports attendance overall seems to have peaked. So, smaller venues offering a better experience is what is trending now.

LA pro franchises want no pro teams in San Diego as they consider the SD market to be part of theirs. However, San Diego was third in MLB attendance in 2023, only the Dodgers and drew more, and we likely led in percentage of capacity as we had 58 sell outs last year. Our NWSL team led the league in attendance at 20,718. That would have put them right behind Austin who were the 12th highest team in the MSL at 20,738. The LA Galaxy drew 24,841 and LAFC drew 22,090 in the MSL. SDSU basketball draws close to its capacity of 12,414 which would be second in the PAC12 only behind Arizona. SDSU football has never marketed well and their previous coaches were terrible in front of the press. The new staff is much better and are being quite visible in promoting the program. Back in the 70s, however, Coryell and Gilbert's SDSU teams outdrew the Chargers.

To the extent that the NHL has market holes, it’s really Houston and Atlanta (where I know hockey has failed multiple times, but it’s still glaring that the most important market in the South doesn’t have a team).

NBA expansion is a fait accompli that the next two franchises are going to Las Vegas and Seattle. That’s barely being hidden.

It’s tough - San Diego might be my favorite city in the continental US. On a personal level, I’d rather travel there for a road game compared to anywhere because I think the place is spectacular. However, from a pure sports economics perspective, I think the proximity to LA is so close that even if a team isn’t in LA County, they’re better off being in Orange County where they can take advantage of both being in the LA TV market and it’s an hour from most of the San Diego area. Philly has a similar distance to NYC, but the Philly market by itself is gargantuan (#4 in the US). In contrast, San Diego is in the Baltimore/Salt Lake City/San Antonio TV market size range. Baltimore sort of has a similar issue where they often get lumped in with the larger DC market (where they have 2 of their own pro teams, but the DC NBA and NHL are deemed to “cover” the Baltimore market), while the other markets that are San Diego-sized are also generally 1-2 team pro sports markets.

For sports purposes, Baltimore is in the DC metro area because they share common suburbs, even if there's almost an hour distance between the cities and they're very distinct. It's tricky because both take pride in being their own thing but for pro sports, they may as well be one city or twin cities.

(01-28-2024 04:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 04:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 03:45 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 06:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 11:10 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  The Chargers have never belonged in LA, IMO.

The Chargers started in LA in 1960, then moved to San Diego in 1961. When the Raiders moved to LA in 1982 from Oakland, there were three NFL teams in Southern California. The Raiders in LA County, the Rams in Orange County, and Chargers in San Diego County. The SoCal area can handle three NFL teams. All three teams wanted better stadium deals or new stadiums. The public money was not there to make the deals work, and all three left their locations. It took a billionaire to build SoFi Stadium without public money.

Without the Raiders in town, Los Angeles became a secondary TV market of the Chargers during their time in San Diego, and KCBS in Los Angeles was required to carry the Chargers Road games. We also got most of their home games. So, the Chargers are not really new to the city. They had a training camp in Carson for a few years. There is only 120 miles separating LA and San Diego, so it is not like you have to stop in San Clemente and ask for directions to either city.

San Diego is America's finest city, and they have great sports fans. I hope they get an NHL or NBA team down there in the next few years, but the Chargers are not going back.

Kronke is now involved in the "Midway Rising " project which is a development that includes a new 16,000 seat arena where the existing arena is. If I could choose, I would prefer an NHL franchise over an NBA one. There was once talk of the Arizona franchise moving to San Diego - they play in something like a 6K seat arena. 16K seats would be on the lower end of capcity when it comes to arenas but I'm sure they could add seats. However, sports attendance overall seems to have peaked. So, smaller venues offering a better experience is what is trending now.

LA pro franchises want no pro teams in San Diego as they consider the SD market to be part of theirs. However, San Diego was third in MLB attendance in 2023, only the Dodgers and drew more, and we likely led in percentage of capacity as we had 58 sell outs last year. Our NWSL team led the league in attendance at 20,718. That would have put them right behind Austin who were the 12th highest team in the MSL at 20,738. The LA Galaxy drew 24,841 and LAFC drew 22,090 in the MSL. SDSU basketball draws close to its capacity of 12,414 which would be second in the PAC12 only behind Arizona. SDSU football has never marketed well and their previous coaches were terrible in front of the press. The new staff is much better and are being quite visible in promoting the program. Back in the 70s, however, Coryell and Gilbert's SDSU teams outdrew the Chargers.

To the extent that the NHL has market holes, it’s really Houston and Atlanta (where I know hockey has failed multiple times, but it’s still glaring that the most important market in the South doesn’t have a team).

NBA expansion is a fait accompli that the next two franchises are going to Las Vegas and Seattle. That’s barely being hidden.

It’s tough - San Diego might be my favorite city in the continental US. On a personal level, I’d rather travel there for a road game compared to anywhere because I think the place is spectacular. However, from a pure sports economics perspective, I think the proximity to LA is so close that even if a team isn’t in LA County, they’re better off being in Orange County where they can take advantage of both being in the LA TV market and it’s an hour from most of the San Diego area. Philly has a similar distance to NYC, but the Philly market by itself is gargantuan (#4 in the US). In contrast, San Diego is in the Baltimore/Salt Lake City/San Antonio TV market size range. Baltimore sort of has a similar issue where they often get lumped in with the larger DC market (where they have 2 of their own pro teams, but the DC NBA and NHL are deemed to “cover” the Baltimore market), while the other markets that are San Diego-sized are also generally 1-2 team pro sports markets.

Excellent analysis. I look at San Antonio, and by itself it might remain a 1 sport city forever. However, will all of the growth in SA, Austin, and everything in between, it wouldn't surprise me to see another 1 or 2 within the next 20 years, with only football more of a "maybe" than a "likely" because the Cowboys are so strong in the region.

San Antonio (and Austin) are growing too fast to be left alone forever, even if San Antonio's disposable income isn't as high as other places (it's improving however). I mean, they're almost growing at Houston and DFW levels, they project to be major metro areas within a few generations, if not sooner.

Would be wise for the NFL to grant a franchise along the I-35 corridor so both places can share a team, somewhere near San Marcos or New Braunfels (sp?, I always have trouble with their name). NHL should go to Austin so they can have a major pro sports team (very similar market and demographics to Columbus, who has a team). I can't decide for MLB, as you need people to be able to come to games sometimes 6-7 days a week and asking them to commute about 35-40 miles (or more) through all that traffic from San Antonio or Austin is asking a bit much. That and the current Austin-area minor league team is in Round Rock, to the north of Austin.

(01-28-2024 04:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 03:45 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 06:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 11:10 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 10:57 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  Or, better yet, they or the NFL need to "realign" either the Chargers back to San Diego, or the Rams back to St. Louis.

And the Jets need to find a big city that's not served either. San Antonio, OKC, SLC, or Mexico City?

The Chargers have never belonged in LA, IMO.

The Chargers started in LA in 1960, then moved to San Diego in 1961. When the Raiders moved to LA in 1982 from Oakland, there were three NFL teams in Southern California. The Raiders in LA County, the Rams in Orange County, and Chargers in San Diego County. The SoCal area can handle three NFL teams. All three teams wanted better stadium deals or new stadiums. The public money was not there to make the deals work, and all three left their locations. It took a billionaire to build SoFi Stadium without public money.

Without the Raiders in town, Los Angeles became a secondary TV market of the Chargers during their time in San Diego, and KCBS in Los Angeles was required to carry the Chargers Road games. We also got most of their home games. So, the Chargers are not really new to the city. They had a training camp in Carson for a few years. There is only 120 miles separating LA and San Diego, so it is not like you have to stop in San Clemente and ask for directions to either city.

San Diego is America's finest city, and they have great sports fans. I hope they get an NHL or NBA team down there in the next few years, but the Chargers are not going back.

Kronke is now involved in the "Midway Rising " project which is a development that includes a new 16,000 seat arena where the existing arena is. If I could choose, I would prefer an NHL franchise over an NBA one. There was once talk of the Arizona franchise moving to San Diego - they play in something like a 6K seat arena. 16K seats would be on the lower end of capcity when it comes to arenas but I'm sure they could add seats. However, sports attendance overall seems to have peaked. So, smaller venues offering a better experience is what is trending now.

LA pro franchises want no pro teams in San Diego as they consider the SD market to be part of theirs. However, San Diego was third in MLB attendance in 2023, only the Dodgers and drew more, and we likely led in percentage of capacity as we had 58 sell outs last year. Our NWSL team led the league in attendance at 20,718. That would have put them right behind Austin who were the 12th highest team in the MSL at 20,738. The LA Galaxy drew 24,841 and LAFC drew 22,090 in the MSL. SDSU basketball draws close to its capacity of 12,414 which would be second in the PAC12 only behind Arizona. SDSU football has never marketed well and their previous coaches were terrible in front of the press. The new staff is much better and are being quite visible in promoting the program. Back in the 70s, however, Coryell and Gilbert's SDSU teams outdrew the Chargers.

To the extent that the NHL has market holes, it’s really Houston and Atlanta (where I know hockey has failed multiple times, but it’s still glaring that the most important market in the South doesn’t have a team).

NBA expansion is a fait accompli that the next two franchises are going to Las Vegas and Seattle. That’s barely being hidden.

It’s tough - San Diego might be my favorite city in the continental US. On a personal level, I’d rather travel there for a road game compared to anywhere because I think the place is spectacular. However, from a pure sports economics perspective, I think the proximity to LA is so close that even if a team isn’t in LA County, they’re better off being in Orange County where they can take advantage of both being in the LA TV market and it’s an hour from most of the San Diego area. Philly has a similar distance to NYC, but the Philly market by itself is gargantuan (#4 in the US). In contrast, San Diego is in the Baltimore/Salt Lake City/San Antonio TV market size range. Baltimore sort of has a similar issue where they often get lumped in with the larger DC market (where they have 2 of their own pro teams, but the DC NBA and NHL are deemed to “cover” the Baltimore market), while the other markets that are San Diego-sized are also generally 1-2 team pro sports markets.

I think you are right about Seattle and Las Vegas as the next expansion cities for the NBA. I don't think Stan Kroenke is helping to build a 16,000-seat arena in San Diego just for concerts. I think he is setting up San Diego for an NHL team, either through expansion or basically convincing a current NHL franchise to move a team to move to San Diego. The last two NHL expansion teams were cities without an NHL or NBA team (Seattle and Las Vegas), just like San Diego.

Salt Lake City is another expansion option along with Houston. Atlanta has failed twice in expansion and while the market is attractive, I just don't think they will be considered for expansion. The San Diego Gulls of the AHL averaged about 7,000 fans in 2022-2023. I think the NHL will be a big hit in San Diego.

(01-28-2024 05:11 PM)C2__ Wrote:  San Antonio (and Austin) are growing too fast to be left alone forever, even if San Antonio's disposable income isn't as high as other places (it's improving however). I mean, they're almost growing at Houston and DFW levels, they project to be major metro areas within a few generations, if not sooner.

Would be wise for the NFL to grant a franchise along the I-35 corridor so both places can share a team, somewhere near San Marcos or New Braunfels (sp?, I always have trouble with their name). NHL should go to Austin so they can have a major pro sports team (very similar market and demographics to Columbus, who has a team). I can't decide for MLB, as you need people to be able to come to games sometimes 6-7 days a week and asking them to commute about 35-40 miles (or more) through all that traffic from San Antonio or Austin is asking a bit much. That and the current Austin-area minor league team is in Round Rock, to the north of Austin.

The population and corporate support in that area is already there. That combination of metro areas is only getting bigger. I-35 traffic in that entire area is already bad and is only getting worse.

An NFL franchise in south central Texas would be a tough but doable project. The Jones and McNair families would fight it hard. As long as Jerry Jones is alive, it's a no go. Stephen and his siblings won't have nearly the power in the NFL as their father currently has, so it might be a possibility in the future. Nonetheless, the Cowboys and the Texans market heavily in that area and won't let it go easily. Football is a sport where you can build a stadium between the two cities, draw fans, and sell sponsorships. The Alamodome is outdated, but can be used as a temporary stadium until a new one could be built near either San Marcos or New Braunfels...that is, if land can be acquired. It would need to be a shared team. Austin and San Antonio would need to put any kind of rivalry aside and get behind it. But, with the team belonging to both cities (or neither), it could be hard to pull fans away from the Cowboys. In San Antonio, local TV ratings for the Cowboys rival those in DFW.

Baseball is a tough sled. The population is spread too thinly and the weekday traffic would keep people away from the ballpark. You'd need to be able to draw 15-20,000 on a weeknight and sell out on the weekends. Tough to get those kind of crowds to a Austin or SA ballpark 81 nights per year. With the weather, you would also need some sort of indoor ballpark...see Arlington prior to 2020, only hotter. Now that the Astros are in the American League, it would be a good place for a National League team. Again, though, you're cutting into the fan bases of the Astros and Rangers.

If Austin or a suburb can build an arena, it would make sense to put an NHL team there. As you mentioned, it's a carbon copy of Columbus. All they need is an arena. The new UT arena is too small. The Spurs already market in and play a game in Austin. An Austin NHL team could do the same in San Antonio.

(01-28-2024 04:50 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 04:00 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 11:07 PM)C2__ Wrote:  The NFL would also be looking at places like Germany and Brazil. To keep the symmetry of the scheduling arrangement the league has, the next time they expand, it'll likely have to be by 8, 1 for each division (it wouldn't work that way per se, as they'd likely have to move teams around to different divisions depending upon where they expand but the point is there'd still be 8 divisions, then with 5 instead of 4 apiece).

And no way would the NFL put 2 teams in a single foreign market unless they became so enraptured in football that the league could justify it. The first team would have to prove itself before any of that extra motion.

London has SEVEN premier league teams. Chelsea sold for $5.4b a couple years ago, that would put them at #13 in the NFL today. Arsenal might be worth more, and Tottenham is certainly valued in the multiple Billions. London has the added benefit of cool "Britishness" and ofc the language. However, London is the only city quite like that, and you might be right about Mexico City and any other foreign location.

American football is still not popular enough for two teams in the same league. Prove to me otherwise.

I can buy 2 British teams but not 2 in the same city, even as massive and wealthy as London is.

London is very different for the UK than any single city is for the US. London has about 1/7th of the entire UK population, Birmingham and Manchester have about 1/4 of London's population, but after that next in line is Glasgow with about 1/10th. London dominates the entire UK, perhaps more so than any other city on earth, and certainly far more than any other city in the English language world. This would be like A US city with 48m people in it, but the next in line was 2 LA's, and next after that was San Diego or Denver. How many NFL teams would a city with 2.5x the population of the Greater NY Metropolitan area support?

There might only be one team in London, but the 2nd team in the UK and quite possibly the 3rd would also be in London.

(01-28-2024 04:10 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 03:09 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 10:57 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(01-24-2024 10:55 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  ... They managed to become the worst ownership in NFL. This, I think, is a way for them to try to redeem themselves.

Or, better yet, they or the NFL need to "realign" either the Chargers back to San Diego, or the Rams back to St. Louis.

And the Jets need to find a big city that's not served either. San Antonio, OKC, SLC, or Mexico City?

Chargers will likely never return to San Diego. They are more likely to go to London than back "home" to San Diego. To be honest, the Chargers are without a city identity. They are way down the totem pole when it comes to popularity in LA for pro and college teams. They "rent" to be at Sofi. The Spani cannot sell until after 10 years in LA unless the NFL waives that rule - possible they would do so. But, they will be the number one franchise that will be pursued for relocation.

As for San Diego, there are just two locations that make sense to build an NFL stadium. On the bayfront in Chula Vista or just south of the city in National City. The best location was where it was in Mission Valley, but the chances of expanding Snapdragon to 55K is unlikely. Getting a stadium built now would likely require a Kronke type invester and neither of those two sites offer much for surrounding development to offset the cost of the stadium. Chula Vista might offer a bit. There is no avenue for public money if the Spani retain ownership.

As for expansion, years ago expansion was not feasible because there just weren't enough quality QBs to go around. Now, with the rules favoring the offense so much, "quality" QBs are all over as they can throw underneath the LBers and Safeties with little consequence. That was the problem with the "West Coast" offense in the day, your WRs got beat up. Now, you can't even look at a WR wrong without getting a flag thrown.

I still don't get how you blame Spanos for this. We have a good 30 years worth of proof that pro sports teams will move if they don't get a decent stadium deal from the City. Lot's of others have moved, and, in every instance, when/if a new team came to town, it cost far more than it would have cost to just keep the old one. Kronke was determined to stiffarm St Louis and return to LA, but Spanos tried VERY hard to remain in San Diego. You guys forced him out, kicking and screaming. I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL never returns to SD, your fans have proven that you neither want nor need an NFL team. Frankly, I don't think you deserve one, and I can think of a half dozen American cities off the top of my head that are more likely to get one than SD in the future. That's assuming that the NFL doesn't start looking at foreign markets, if they do that then SD is really getting left out.

You claimed that Spanos couldn't get a decent stadium deal in San Diego and I show you proof that they were offered more than $950M to stay. It appears you didn't read my history of the Chargers under the Spani. Did you miss the part where I wrote that, after their one SB appearance, they demanded, and got, a publicly funded stadium expansion and renovation only to go on MNF to demand a new stadium right after the city just spent over $100M (over $210M in today's dollars) to give them what they previously demanded? Did you miss the part where they said the MV site was too expensive too redevelop despite the fact that SDSU is doing that while not being gifted the land and being required to spend some $60M for a new public park and bridge? Spanos is a cheap bastard who would still be playing in the old SD stadium had Kronke not decided to move the Rams back to LA. And he has been a cheap bastard when it comes to his new rental digs at SoFi.

He was forced out "kicking and screaming?" That is just laughable. San Diego and the NFL offered him more money that most owners would get to stay in their city. At the time, on another site, showed that they could build a state of the art 62K stadium in San Diego for no more than $700-750M or so, that was based on the Arizona stadium in Glendale. Plenty of premium seating and, unlike Zona, we wouldn't need a roof with a field that could be moved outside to grow real grass. I'm pretty sure the NFL would still like to have the San Diego market as it was when the Chargers played here. I presented quite a bit of information as to the Chargers and their relationship with the city/county of San Diego. Please feel free to tell me where I am wrong and please tell me where I can find that the Spani were forced out of SD "kicking and screaming."

Again, the one offer the Chargers made to the city is one they pulled when they couldn't find an investment partner to redevelop the MV site. They never put forth any other formal proposal until they announced they were leaving and the NFL sent them back to get a deal here in town. That is when they came up with the downtown stadium tied into the convention center which they, us, and our local officials had no chance to pass the voters and the cost of that stadium site to the city would have been over $1.2B. They wanted to be able to go back to the NFL and say, "well, we tried." They didn't which is why they hired Fabiani to make sure a deal didn't get done here.

LA offered nothing to get the Rams back, by the way. By your logic, they don't deserve even one NFL team. Again, they have lost 4 NFL teams in their history. It will be 5 in the next 10-15 years when the Chargers leave. Pretty sure Kronke will help them pack.

The city made a much better investment choice with the SDSU MV expansion. With the campus expansion focus on expanding SDSU's research capabilities the site will earn much more revenue for the region. The city also gets other benefits as I explained in the new public park and Fenton Pkwy bridge.

And, you missed my post where I said I don't think the Chargers would return to SD in the foreseeable future. I have said that they are essentially an NFL team without a city and will be the subject of interest for other cities wanting an NFL franchise and I have said that I expect that they end up in London without the Spani ownership.

(01-28-2024 04:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 04:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 03:45 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 06:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 11:10 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  The Chargers have never belonged in LA, IMO.

The Chargers started in LA in 1960, then moved to San Diego in 1961. When the Raiders moved to LA in 1982 from Oakland, there were three NFL teams in Southern California. The Raiders in LA County, the Rams in Orange County, and Chargers in San Diego County. The SoCal area can handle three NFL teams. All three teams wanted better stadium deals or new stadiums. The public money was not there to make the deals work, and all three left their locations. It took a billionaire to build SoFi Stadium without public money.

Without the Raiders in town, Los Angeles became a secondary TV market of the Chargers during their time in San Diego, and KCBS in Los Angeles was required to carry the Chargers Road games. We also got most of their home games. So, the Chargers are not really new to the city. They had a training camp in Carson for a few years. There is only 120 miles separating LA and San Diego, so it is not like you have to stop in San Clemente and ask for directions to either city.

San Diego is America's finest city, and they have great sports fans. I hope they get an NHL or NBA team down there in the next few years, but the Chargers are not going back.

Kronke is now involved in the "Midway Rising " project which is a development that includes a new 16,000 seat arena where the existing arena is. If I could choose, I would prefer an NHL franchise over an NBA one. There was once talk of the Arizona franchise moving to San Diego - they play in something like a 6K seat arena. 16K seats would be on the lower end of capcity when it comes to arenas but I'm sure they could add seats. However, sports attendance overall seems to have peaked. So, smaller venues offering a better experience is what is trending now.

LA pro franchises want no pro teams in San Diego as they consider the SD market to be part of theirs. However, San Diego was third in MLB attendance in 2023, only the Dodgers and drew more, and we likely led in percentage of capacity as we had 58 sell outs last year. Our NWSL team led the league in attendance at 20,718. That would have put them right behind Austin who were the 12th highest team in the MSL at 20,738. The LA Galaxy drew 24,841 and LAFC drew 22,090 in the MSL. SDSU basketball draws close to its capacity of 12,414 which would be second in the PAC12 only behind Arizona. SDSU football has never marketed well and their previous coaches were terrible in front of the press. The new staff is much better and are being quite visible in promoting the program. Back in the 70s, however, Coryell and Gilbert's SDSU teams outdrew the Chargers.

To the extent that the NHL has market holes, it’s really Houston and Atlanta (where I know hockey has failed multiple times, but it’s still glaring that the most important market in the South doesn’t have a team).

NBA expansion is a fait accompli that the next two franchises are going to Las Vegas and Seattle. That’s barely being hidden.

It’s tough - San Diego might be my favorite city in the continental US. On a personal level, I’d rather travel there for a road game compared to anywhere because I think the place is spectacular. However, from a pure sports economics perspective, I think the proximity to LA is so close that even if a team isn’t in LA County, they’re better off being in Orange County where they can take advantage of both being in the LA TV market and it’s an hour from most of the San Diego area. Philly has a similar distance to NYC, but the Philly market by itself is gargantuan (#4 in the US). In contrast, San Diego is in the Baltimore/Salt Lake City/San Antonio TV market size range. Baltimore sort of has a similar issue where they often get lumped in with the larger DC market (where they have 2 of their own pro teams, but the DC NBA and NHL are deemed to “cover” the Baltimore market), while the other markets that are San Diego-sized are also generally 1-2 team pro sports markets.

Excellent analysis. I look at San Antonio, and by itself it might remain a 1 sport city forever. However, will all of the growth in SA, Austin, and everything in between, it wouldn't surprise me to see another 1 or 2 within the next 20 years, with only football more of a "maybe" than a "likely" because the Cowboys are so strong in the region.

Jerry Jones will not allow an NFL team in San Antonio. There was once talk about the Chargers going there but the Spani could never see themselves living in San Antonio.

(01-28-2024 04:38 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 03:52 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 10:42 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 08:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 03:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The NFL is its ownership. It’s more valuable for the NFL owners to have Jerry Jones and the Cowboys cover San Antonio and Oklahoma City than it is to split that fan base up. Also, I don’t think a lot of people still quite understand just how huge the NYC and LA markets by themselves. They are larger than every *state* outside of Texas and Florida (along with their own home states of New York and California) and, not insignificantly, those two markets have among the highest concentrations of wealth of any metro areas in the entire world. Those are wholly unique situations, which is why every pro sports league has at least 2 teams in each of those markets (and even a 3rd in the case of the NHL with the NYC market).

The actual numbers are 19,557,000 for NYC and 17,540,000 for LA (when you include Riverside which alone is bigger than all but 11 metros). Chicago is a distant 3rd at 9,274,000, then DFW at 7,944,000 and Houston at 7,368,000.

Metropolitan Statistical Areas with over 3 million population:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolit...uerto_Rico
Metropolitan statistical area 2022
estimate 2020
census %
change Encompassing combined statistical area

New York–Newark–Jersey City, NY-NJ MSA 19,557,311 20,081,935 −2.61% New York–Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA MSA 12,872,322 13,200,998 −2.49% Los Angeles–Long Beach, CA CSA
Chicago–Naperville–Elgin, IL-IN MSA 9,274,140 9,449,351 −1.85% Chicago–Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA
Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX MSA 7,943,685 7,637,387 +4.01% Dallas–Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA
Houston–Pasadena–The Woodlands, TX MSA 7,368,466 7,149,642 +3.06% Houston–Pasadena, TX CSA
Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA 6,265,183 6,278,542 −0.21% Washington–Baltimore–Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA
Philadelphia–Camden–Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA 6,241,164 6,245,051 −0.06% Philadelphia–Reading–Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA
Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Roswell, GA MSA 6,237,435 6,104,803 +2.17% Atlanta–Athens-Clarke County–Sandy Springs, GA-AL CSA
Miami–Fort Lauderdale–West Palm Beach, FL MSA 6,139,340 6,138,333 +0.02% Miami–Port St. Lucie–Fort Lauderdale, FL CSA
Phoenix–Mesa–Chandler, AZ MSA 5,015,678 4,845,832 +3.50% Phoenix–Mesa, AZ CSA
Boston–Cambridge–Newton, MA-NH MSA 4,900,550 4,941,632 −0.83% Boston–Worcester–Providence, MA-RI-NH CSA
Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario, CA MSA 4,667,558 4,599,839 +1.47% Los Angeles–Long Beach, CA CSA
San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont, CA MSA 4,579,599 4,749,008 −3.57% San Jose–San Francisco–Oakland, CA CSA
Detroit–Warren–Dearborn, MI MSA 4,345,761 4,392,041 −1.05% Detroit–Warren–Ann Arbor, MI CSA
Seattle–Tacoma–Bellevue, WA MSA 4,034,248 4,018,762 +0.39% Seattle–Tacoma, WA CSA
Minneapolis–St. Paul–Bloomington, MN-WI MSA 3,693,729 3,690,261 +0.09% Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN-WI CSA
Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA 3,290,730 3,175,275 +3.64%
San Diego–Chula Vista–Carlsbad, CA MSA 3,276,208 3,298,634 −0.68%

As you noted, LA's numbers are misleading (and for that matter, so is San Francisco's). As someone born in the supposed Riverside-San Bernardino metro area, let me express bluntly that there is no such thing. I mean, High Desert is its own thing and all those areas toward Las Vegas and Arizona aren't really LA metro but pretty much everything in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties with some sizable population feels a direct connection to LA, particularly the I-10 corridor. It's so connected to LA that the Inland Empire, as it's colloquially called, is mostly covered by LA media.

And San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose are separated only by the Census Bureau's funky commuter statistics. There's no break in development on any side of the Bay except maybe in the north in Wine Country, and San Jose is so close to the other cities that the A's nearly moved there and their season ticket holders would have been mostly the same.

A lot of San Diegans moved to the Temecula and Murrieta region in the 80s and 90s because housing prices were so much lower. I know the PAC12 claimed the Riverside area as part of their DMA but I would question that. Both of those regions seem to have more in common with San Diego County than LA County.

Never spent much time in Riverside or Riverside County (as a matter of fact, I may have never been in all my time living in and visiting California) but most of San Bernardino County, especially the I-10 corridor, is suburban outgrowth of LA. That much I know.

Temecula and Murrieta are newer, planned communities. Again, many from San Diego moved there when house prices were so much cheaper. Temecula is a very nice community with wineries and golf courses. I could live there.

(01-29-2024 01:34 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 04:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 03:45 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 06:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 11:10 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  The Chargers have never belonged in LA, IMO.

The Chargers started in LA in 1960, then moved to San Diego in 1961. When the Raiders moved to LA in 1982 from Oakland, there were three NFL teams in Southern California. The Raiders in LA County, the Rams in Orange County, and Chargers in San Diego County. The SoCal area can handle three NFL teams. All three teams wanted better stadium deals or new stadiums. The public money was not there to make the deals work, and all three left their locations. It took a billionaire to build SoFi Stadium without public money.

Without the Raiders in town, Los Angeles became a secondary TV market of the Chargers during their time in San Diego, and KCBS in Los Angeles was required to carry the Chargers Road games. We also got most of their home games. So, the Chargers are not really new to the city. They had a training camp in Carson for a few years. There is only 120 miles separating LA and San Diego, so it is not like you have to stop in San Clemente and ask for directions to either city.

San Diego is America's finest city, and they have great sports fans. I hope they get an NHL or NBA team down there in the next few years, but the Chargers are not going back.

Kronke is now involved in the "Midway Rising " project which is a development that includes a new 16,000 seat arena where the existing arena is. If I could choose, I would prefer an NHL franchise over an NBA one. There was once talk of the Arizona franchise moving to San Diego - they play in something like a 6K seat arena. 16K seats would be on the lower end of capcity when it comes to arenas but I'm sure they could add seats. However, sports attendance overall seems to have peaked. So, smaller venues offering a better experience is what is trending now.

LA pro franchises want no pro teams in San Diego as they consider the SD market to be part of theirs. However, San Diego was third in MLB attendance in 2023, only the Dodgers and drew more, and we likely led in percentage of capacity as we had 58 sell outs last year. Our NWSL team led the league in attendance at 20,718. That would have put them right behind Austin who were the 12th highest team in the MSL at 20,738. The LA Galaxy drew 24,841 and LAFC drew 22,090 in the MSL. SDSU basketball draws close to its capacity of 12,414 which would be second in the PAC12 only behind Arizona. SDSU football has never marketed well and their previous coaches were terrible in front of the press. The new staff is much better and are being quite visible in promoting the program. Back in the 70s, however, Coryell and Gilbert's SDSU teams outdrew the Chargers.

To the extent that the NHL has market holes, it’s really Houston and Atlanta (where I know hockey has failed multiple times, but it’s still glaring that the most important market in the South doesn’t have a team).

NBA expansion is a fait accompli that the next two franchises are going to Las Vegas and Seattle. That’s barely being hidden.

It’s tough - San Diego might be my favorite city in the continental US. On a personal level, I’d rather travel there for a road game compared to anywhere because I think the place is spectacular. However, from a pure sports economics perspective, I think the proximity to LA is so close that even if a team isn’t in LA County, they’re better off being in Orange County where they can take advantage of both being in the LA TV market and it’s an hour from most of the San Diego area. Philly has a similar distance to NYC, but the Philly market by itself is gargantuan (#4 in the US). In contrast, San Diego is in the Baltimore/Salt Lake City/San Antonio TV market size range. Baltimore sort of has a similar issue where they often get lumped in with the larger DC market (where they have 2 of their own pro teams, but the DC NBA and NHL are deemed to “cover” the Baltimore market), while the other markets that are San Diego-sized are also generally 1-2 team pro sports markets.

I think you are right about Seattle and Las Vegas as the next expansion cities for the NBA. I don't think Stan Kroenke is helping to build a 16,000-seat arena in San Diego just for concerts. I think he is setting up San Diego for an NHL team, either through expansion or basically convincing a current NHL franchise to move a team to move to San Diego. The last two NHL expansion teams were cities without an NHL or NBA team (Seattle and Las Vegas), just like San Diego.

Salt Lake City is another expansion option along with Houston. Atlanta has failed twice in expansion and while the market is attractive, I just don't think they will be considered for expansion. The San Diego Gulls of the AHL averaged about 7,000 fans in 2022-2023. I think the NHL will be a big hit in San Diego.

My Dad was Canadian and we went to many Gulls and Mariners games in the 60s and 70s. The Gulls draw well for minor league and it an arena that is a dump. The location of the site isn't as attractive compared to either the MV site (no longer an option) or downtown. Traffic is going to be an issue as there is no trolley and rather limited freeway access.

I understand that Houston and SLC are mentioned more than San Diego for NHL expansion or relocation. But, SD was behind something like 5 cities (Sacramento and Las Vegas primarily) for MSL expansion and ended up winning that. Having a proper venue would likely elevate SD's chances for an NHL team. Kronke, being an NHL owner, could help SD's cause should he want to. However, the two franchises immediately north of us would likely prefer no SD franchise.

(01-29-2024 01:57 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 04:50 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 04:00 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 11:07 PM)C2__ Wrote:  The NFL would also be looking at places like Germany and Brazil. To keep the symmetry of the scheduling arrangement the league has, the next time they expand, it'll likely have to be by 8, 1 for each division (it wouldn't work that way per se, as they'd likely have to move teams around to different divisions depending upon where they expand but the point is there'd still be 8 divisions, then with 5 instead of 4 apiece).

And no way would the NFL put 2 teams in a single foreign market unless they became so enraptured in football that the league could justify it. The first team would have to prove itself before any of that extra motion.

London has SEVEN premier league teams. Chelsea sold for $5.4b a couple years ago, that would put them at #13 in the NFL today. Arsenal might be worth more, and Tottenham is certainly valued in the multiple Billions. London has the added benefit of cool "Britishness" and ofc the language. However, London is the only city quite like that, and you might be right about Mexico City and any other foreign location.

American football is still not popular enough for two teams in the same league. Prove to me otherwise.

I can buy 2 British teams but not 2 in the same city, even as massive and wealthy as London is.

London is very different for the UK than any single city is for the US. London has about 1/7th of the entire UK population, Birmingham and Manchester have about 1/4 of London's population, but after that next in line is Glasgow with about 1/10th. London dominates the entire UK, perhaps more so than any other city on earth, and certainly far more than any other city in the English language world. This would be like A US city with 48m people in it, but the next in line was 2 LA's, and next after that was San Diego or Denver. How many NFL teams would a city with 2.5x the population of the Greater NY Metropolitan area support?

There might only be one team in London, but the 2nd team in the UK and quite possibly the 3rd would also be in London.

Or in Dublin, they've proven they are game to American football, even if it's still a novelty at this point.

(01-29-2024 01:49 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 05:11 PM)C2__ Wrote:  San Antonio (and Austin) are growing too fast to be left alone forever, even if San Antonio's disposable income isn't as high as other places (it's improving however). I mean, they're almost growing at Houston and DFW levels, they project to be major metro areas within a few generations, if not sooner.

Would be wise for the NFL to grant a franchise along the I-35 corridor so both places can share a team, somewhere near San Marcos or New Braunfels (sp?, I always have trouble with their name). NHL should go to Austin so they can have a major pro sports team (very similar market and demographics to Columbus, who has a team). I can't decide for MLB, as you need people to be able to come to games sometimes 6-7 days a week and asking them to commute about 35-40 miles (or more) through all that traffic from San Antonio or Austin is asking a bit much. That and the current Austin-area minor league team is in Round Rock, to the north of Austin.

The population and corporate support in that area is already there. That combination of metro areas is only getting bigger. I-35 traffic in that entire area is already bad and is only getting worse.

An NFL franchise in south central Texas would be a tough but doable project. The Jones and McNair families would fight it hard. As long as Jerry Jones is alive, it's a no go. Stephen and his siblings won't have nearly the power in the NFL as their father currently has, so it might be a possibility in the future. Nonetheless, the Cowboys and the Texans market heavily in that area and won't let it go easily. Football is a sport where you can build a stadium between the two cities, draw fans, and sell sponsorships. The Alamodome is outdated, but can be used as a temporary stadium until a new one could be built near either San Marcos or New Braunfels...that is, if land can be acquired. It would need to be a shared team. Austin and San Antonio would need to put any kind of rivalry aside and get behind it. But, with the team belonging to both cities (or neither), it could be hard to pull fans away from the Cowboys. In San Antonio, local TV ratings for the Cowboys rival those in DFW.

Baseball is a tough sled. The population is spread too thinly and the weekday traffic would keep people away from the ballpark. You'd need to be able to draw 15-20,000 on a weeknight and sell out on the weekends. Tough to get those kind of crowds to a Austin or SA ballpark 81 nights per year. With the weather, you would also need some sort of indoor ballpark...see Arlington prior to 2020, only hotter. Now that the Astros are in the American League, it would be a good place for a National League team. Again, though, you're cutting into the fan bases of the Astros and Rangers.

If Austin or a suburb can build an arena, it would make sense to put an NHL team there. As you mentioned, it's a carbon copy of Columbus. All they need is an arena. The new UT arena is too small. The Spurs already market in and play a game in Austin. An Austin NHL team could do the same in San Antonio.

The corporate support is there in Austin for certain, especially since they don't have a team besides the MLS team. I'm still skeptical on San Antonio. There's a reason Paul Tagliabue was bullish on not granting them a franchise. But, admittedly, that was a long time ago and the city has experienced tremendous growth, both in total population and when it comes to business and commerce. The Spurs are very popular and get a great amount of entertainment dollars and attention (as in people going to games and watching on TV) in San Antonio. A new team wouldn't be guaranteed to move the needle and could be a massive flop or success. Depends on whether they win right away or not. But it's still a realistic possibility, except maybe in MLB.

(01-29-2024 07:37 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 04:38 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 03:52 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 10:42 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 08:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  The actual numbers are 19,557,000 for NYC and 17,540,000 for LA (when you include Riverside which alone is bigger than all but 11 metros). Chicago is a distant 3rd at 9,274,000, then DFW at 7,944,000 and Houston at 7,368,000.

Metropolitan Statistical Areas with over 3 million population:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolit...uerto_Rico
Metropolitan statistical area 2022
estimate 2020
census %
change Encompassing combined statistical area

New York–Newark–Jersey City, NY-NJ MSA 19,557,311 20,081,935 −2.61% New York–Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA MSA 12,872,322 13,200,998 −2.49% Los Angeles–Long Beach, CA CSA
Chicago–Naperville–Elgin, IL-IN MSA 9,274,140 9,449,351 −1.85% Chicago–Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA
Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX MSA 7,943,685 7,637,387 +4.01% Dallas–Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA
Houston–Pasadena–The Woodlands, TX MSA 7,368,466 7,149,642 +3.06% Houston–Pasadena, TX CSA
Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA 6,265,183 6,278,542 −0.21% Washington–Baltimore–Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA
Philadelphia–Camden–Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA 6,241,164 6,245,051 −0.06% Philadelphia–Reading–Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA
Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Roswell, GA MSA 6,237,435 6,104,803 +2.17% Atlanta–Athens-Clarke County–Sandy Springs, GA-AL CSA
Miami–Fort Lauderdale–West Palm Beach, FL MSA 6,139,340 6,138,333 +0.02% Miami–Port St. Lucie–Fort Lauderdale, FL CSA
Phoenix–Mesa–Chandler, AZ MSA 5,015,678 4,845,832 +3.50% Phoenix–Mesa, AZ CSA
Boston–Cambridge–Newton, MA-NH MSA 4,900,550 4,941,632 −0.83% Boston–Worcester–Providence, MA-RI-NH CSA
Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario, CA MSA 4,667,558 4,599,839 +1.47% Los Angeles–Long Beach, CA CSA
San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont, CA MSA 4,579,599 4,749,008 −3.57% San Jose–San Francisco–Oakland, CA CSA
Detroit–Warren–Dearborn, MI MSA 4,345,761 4,392,041 −1.05% Detroit–Warren–Ann Arbor, MI CSA
Seattle–Tacoma–Bellevue, WA MSA 4,034,248 4,018,762 +0.39% Seattle–Tacoma, WA CSA
Minneapolis–St. Paul–Bloomington, MN-WI MSA 3,693,729 3,690,261 +0.09% Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN-WI CSA
Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA 3,290,730 3,175,275 +3.64%
San Diego–Chula Vista–Carlsbad, CA MSA 3,276,208 3,298,634 −0.68%

As you noted, LA's numbers are misleading (and for that matter, so is San Francisco's). As someone born in the supposed Riverside-San Bernardino metro area, let me express bluntly that there is no such thing. I mean, High Desert is its own thing and all those areas toward Las Vegas and Arizona aren't really LA metro but pretty much everything in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties with some sizable population feels a direct connection to LA, particularly the I-10 corridor. It's so connected to LA that the Inland Empire, as it's colloquially called, is mostly covered by LA media.

And San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose are separated only by the Census Bureau's funky commuter statistics. There's no break in development on any side of the Bay except maybe in the north in Wine Country, and San Jose is so close to the other cities that the A's nearly moved there and their season ticket holders would have been mostly the same.

A lot of San Diegans moved to the Temecula and Murrieta region in the 80s and 90s because housing prices were so much lower. I know the PAC12 claimed the Riverside area as part of their DMA but I would question that. Both of those regions seem to have more in common with San Diego County than LA County.

Never spent much time in Riverside or Riverside County (as a matter of fact, I may have never been in all my time living in and visiting California) but most of San Bernardino County, especially the I-10 corridor, is suburban outgrowth of LA. That much I know.

Temecula and Murrieta are newer, planned communities. Again, many from San Diego moved there when house prices were so much cheaper. Temecula is a very nice community with wineries and golf courses. I could live there.

That area is on my future retirement winter home option list. Really nice area, wineries and golf (as you mentioned), can get to the beach, San Diego and Orange County in an hour or so, and not as outrageous in terms of housing prices (at least compared to coastal California standards - still more expensive than comparable areas in Arizona/Nevada/Florida/South Carolina). Seems like a place where working from home or being retired would work really well. The main drawback seems to be for those that actually need to commute to SD/OC/LA with the distance and traffic.

(01-29-2024 09:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-29-2024 07:37 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 04:38 PM)C2__ Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 03:52 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(01-25-2024 10:42 PM)C2__ Wrote:  As you noted, LA's numbers are misleading (and for that matter, so is San Francisco's). As someone born in the supposed Riverside-San Bernardino metro area, let me express bluntly that there is no such thing. I mean, High Desert is its own thing and all those areas toward Las Vegas and Arizona aren't really LA metro but pretty much everything in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties with some sizable population feels a direct connection to LA, particularly the I-10 corridor. It's so connected to LA that the Inland Empire, as it's colloquially called, is mostly covered by LA media.

And San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose are separated only by the Census Bureau's funky commuter statistics. There's no break in development on any side of the Bay except maybe in the north in Wine Country, and San Jose is so close to the other cities that the A's nearly moved there and their season ticket holders would have been mostly the same.

A lot of San Diegans moved to the Temecula and Murrieta region in the 80s and 90s because housing prices were so much lower. I know the PAC12 claimed the Riverside area as part of their DMA but I would question that. Both of those regions seem to have more in common with San Diego County than LA County.

Never spent much time in Riverside or Riverside County (as a matter of fact, I may have never been in all my time living in and visiting California) but most of San Bernardino County, especially the I-10 corridor, is suburban outgrowth of LA. That much I know.

Temecula and Murrieta are newer, planned communities. Again, many from San Diego moved there when house prices were so much cheaper. Temecula is a very nice community with wineries and golf courses. I could live there.

That area is on my future retirement winter home option list. Really nice area, wineries and golf (as you mentioned), can get to the beach, San Diego and Orange County in an hour or so, and not as outrageous in terms of housing prices (at least compared to coastal California standards - still more expensive than comparable areas in Arizona/Nevada/Florida/South Carolina). Seems like a place where working from home or being retired would work really well. The main drawback seems to be for those that actually need to commute to SD/OC/LA with the distance and traffic.

Temecula is a beautiful area. Lots of good wineries and restaurants. Pechanga casino is in Temecula, if you like to gamble or are looking for entertainment. Thirty miles from the beach. About 75 miles from the ski slopes. Around 60 miles from Petco Park and 60 miles from Angel Stadium and the Honda Center, when the Blackhawks are in town. If you like golf, plenty of good golf courses from San Diego to Palm Springs.

LA media covers all of the inland empire, most of Riverside County and most of San Bernardino County. If you live in Temecula, your life will be more centered around San Diego. You want to avoid driving into Los Angeles. There is no train service to Temecula and the closest airports are San Diego or Ontario. The 15 freeway by vehicle is the only way to get to and from Temecula.