BuffaloBud Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 Thought that this might stir some debate. Support of pro sports - metro markets
ACor58 Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 Rochester was #7 for top market for expansion. Rochester also has a higher area total personal income ($43.9 billion) than Buffalo ($41.4 billion). Maybe the Bills should move here.
Like A Mofo Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 I was suprised to see that Rochester has a higher personal total income then Buffalo, now Im no expert on what is going on in RaChaCha vs Buffalo...I just figured based on population alone Buffalo's income would be higher.
silvermike Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 I don't imagine that that really includes the wide-area marketing the Bills do. If you add Toronto, Rochester, Syracuse, and everything in between, we probably get pretty good numbers. 5 more hockey games at the Blue Cross Arena wouldn't hurt, though.
ACor58 Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 I don't imagine that that really includes the wide-area marketing the Bills do. If you add Toronto, Rochester, Syracuse, and everything in between, we probably get pretty good numbers. 5 more hockey games at the Blue Cross Arena wouldn't hurt, though. 603687[/snapback] While the games at the BCA are fun, they don't do the team much good when they are playing well. The Arena keeps all the concession revenue and even a sellout at the BCA is only 11,000 fans, which the team needs to share with the arena.
bobblehead Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 I don't imagine that that really includes the wide-area marketing the Bills do. If you add Toronto, Rochester, Syracuse, and everything in between, we probably get pretty good numbers. 5 more hockey games at the Blue Cross Arena wouldn't hurt, though. 603687[/snapback] There are several cities on the overcrowded list that seem peculiar, regarding metro areas close by, but rankings like this are always flawed, somehow. I'm also not sure how the "new NHL" as it's structured after the lockout affects the methodology. I'm guessing that the overall hit on the area income is less now. This might make Buffalo's numbers a bit better. I really have no idea, just guestimating. Also, the #7 for Rochester means little - MLS needs owners with enough jack to handle the cash calls that MLS needs every year to offset the huge rental fees they pay on some of their stadiums (i.e. Meadowlands). DuRoss pulled a miracle gettin PTP built, but he's no billionairre. MLS is single-entity. All owners pitch in to run the league, teams are not run (and do not profit or lose) independently. And there are no huge TV deals that the teams share. I believe MLS pays ABC for the games they do show (someone, anyone, am I right on this?) Once the MLS stadium in Harrison (NJ) for the Metrostars, and others are built and running, MLS will be relieved of their huge rental fees and will be in better shape to take on teams with less then insanely rich ownership, like Rochester.
Lurker Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 I don't imagine that that really includes the wide-area marketing the Bills do. If you add Toronto, Rochester, Syracuse, and everything in between, we probably get pretty good numbers. 5 more hockey games at the Blue Cross Arena wouldn't hurt, though. 603687[/snapback] That's the big flaw in this ranking. To get at Buffalo's real capacity, you'd need to combine the Buffalo-Rochester-Southern Tier-Southern Ontario markets, all of which the Bills (and to a lesser extent the Sabres) draw from. That footprint has over $120 billion in personal income, more than double places like Las Vegas and Portland that don't have comparable feeder markets.
Marv's Neighbor Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 Thought that this might stir some debate. Support of pro sports - metro markets 603659[/snapback] As the old saying goes: Figures Lie and Liers Figure!
Lori Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Did they ever stop to think that the D-Rays, Arizona Cardinals and Kansas City Royals aren't drawing fans because those teams STINK, not because they're in an oversold area? Sabres didn't draw when they were lousy. They're good this season, and they've sold out nine of the last twelve. Coincidence? Think not.
The Dean Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 My first impression (without seeing ALL the details in their ratings/rankings) is they've done a pretty piss-poor job. I wonder why they use "Northern New Jersey" and not "Western New York"? As Lurker suggests, using Metro areas (instead of DMAs or ADIs) disadvantages aresa such as Buffalo. Also, there's more involved in supporting a franchise (as the Buffalo area proves every year). Haven't markets like Hartford (and LA) shown they don't "pull their weight" when it comes to supporting local sports franchises?
Tortured Soul Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 I actually this analysis is well done and interesting. I agree that the best places for baseball to move teams, were it not for complaints from owners, are the New Jersey and San Bernadino areas. Imagine a new stadium in Jersey City, looking out on the river. I think it's odd, though, according to their numbers, Tampa has the least ability to support its MLB team, but the best candidate, Orlando, is just 85 miles up the road. That's the big flaw in this ranking. To get at Buffalo's real capacity, you'd need to combine the Buffalo-Rochester-Southern Tier-Southern Ontario markets, all of which the Bills (and to a lesser extent the Sabres) draw from. That footprint has over $120 billion in personal income, more than double places like Las Vegas and Portland that don't have comparable feeder markets. 603715[/snapback] This may work for football, but not for hockey. How many people drive hours each way for a hockey game especially on a weeknight? I wonder why they use "Northern New Jersey" and not "Western New York"? 604421[/snapback] Because northern New Jersey is a subcategory of a larger area, not an expansion of a smaller area as western New York is.
Like A Mofo Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Did they ever stop to think that the D-Rays, Arizona Cardinals and Kansas City Royals aren't drawing fans because those teams STINK, not because they're in an oversold area? Sabres didn't draw when they were lousy. They're good this season, and they've sold out nine of the last twelve. Coincidence? Think not. 604410[/snapback] Sabres hve almost always been very good with attendence....the only year in which the Sabres were very down in attendence was the bankrupt year with Rigas.... Sabres Look at the attendence for teams like Hartford...and you wonder why they did move..BAD attendence for several years there...even when the Sabres were awful in the mid 80's the attendence figures were very strong...so the Whale's losing a partly an excuse.
Tortured Soul Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Did they ever stop to think that the D-Rays, Arizona Cardinals and Kansas City Royals aren't drawing fans because those teams STINK, not because they're in an oversold area? Sabres didn't draw when they were lousy. They're good this season, and they've sold out nine of the last twelve. Coincidence? Think not. 604410[/snapback] I think their income numbers have to look beyond attendance because the bigger the market, the more teams are able to charge. It doesn't matter if you're selling out a 20,000-seat arena for $20 a ticket if another place would have 15,000 tickets sold at $50 a piece. The Bills do well in attendance, but probably rank near the bottom in gate receipts.
buckeyebrian Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Rochester was #7 for top market for expansion. Rochester also has a higher area total personal income ($43.9 billion) than Buffalo ($41.4 billion). Maybe the Bills should move here. 603678[/snapback] I guarantee you that some of the geographical areas mentioned (LA for example) are bigger than combining Buffalo and Rochester and everything in between
Lurker Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 I guarantee you that some of the geographical areas mentioned (LA for example) are bigger than combining Buffalo and Rochester and everything in between 604876[/snapback] Duh. LA's the biggest market in the county no matter how you cut it. That's not in doubt. What's interesting is when you get below the top 10 mega-markets. Rust Belt areas like Buffalo look pretty weak when measured individually. However, because of the historic density / proximity of these places to nearby markets (aka, Roch-Cha-Cha, the Golden Horseshoe in Ontario), they actually are pretty competitive with many faster growing Southern and Western markets that tend to be lone islands in a sea of wilderness (Portland, Las Vegas, San Antonio, etc.). The trick is to become a regional team like the Bills, Chiefs, Packers and Vikings. RW's been lucky to have some good young front office talent like Russ Brandon to help market the team outside WNY and keep them competitive at the gate.
The Dean Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Duh. LA's the biggest market in the county no matter how you cut it. That's not in doubt. 605030[/snapback] NYC is the largest METRO and largest MARKET in the country. LA is #2. Just an FYI.
SF Bills Fan Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 You could make the case the Rochester and Buffalo are one market. People include San Jose in with San Francisco, so that isn't a stretch. Rochester almost shares the Bills to some extent. You could put an NBA team in Rochester and have them play a number of games in Buffalo too, increase the number of games the Sabres play in Rochester and then the WNY market (Buff/Roch.) would be saturated as far as teams go.
Recommended Posts