Contraction in Major Sports

[RainMaker]

Bill Simmons had a great column the other day about the financial disaster awaiting the NBA. In it he doesn't believe any NBA franchises will be contracted (although they should) but stated that there were some people involved in the NHL that believed as many as 15 teams could be on the chopping block.

The Sports Guy: Bill Simmons Welcome to the No Benjamins Association - ESPN Page 2

Now there is some talk about MLB contraction including the Marlins and A's.

A's, Marlins could be goners as contraction looms


So with this recession seemingly getting worse, talk of unemployment potentially reaching double digits, and massive debts being incurred by cities, it looks like the sports landscape could change dramatically over the next few years. In a way, I actually don't think contraction is a bad thing, especially in a sport like the NBA or MLB that has gotten too diluted. I'd love to see the NBA drop 4 teams and MLB to drop at least 2.

I think the NHL is in the most danger. They don't have a huge TV deal to offset costs and must rely heavily on ticket sales. Smaller markets are just not going to be able to keep up.

[DeToxRox]

NHL will move teams to markets desperate for hockey.

In the next 10 years I fully expect teams in Kansas City and Hamilton and maybe even Northwest in Seattle or Portland.

If all else fails there are plenty of hockey starved markets in Canada, such as Hamilton. Teams will make their way North before falling off the earth.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

From a sports perspective, the recession has actually helped Kansas City in a warped sort of way.

-NBA/NHL teams are looking for a sweetheart of a deal, which is available in the tenant-less Sprint Center.

-The owner of the Royals (David Glass) is a Wal-Mart exec. He's actually been able to increase salary substantially thanks to the renovations of the stadium and Glass is making money hand-over-fist in his day job thanks to huge boosts in Wal Mart sales. The Royals are MUCH more secure financially than they were as little as 4-5 years ago.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

NHL will move teams to markets desperate for hockey.

In the next 10 years I fully expect teams in Kansas City and Hamilton and maybe even Northwest in Seattle or Portland.

If all else fails there are plenty of hockey starved markets in Canada, such as Hamilton. Teams will make their way North before falling off the earth.

I don't see Hamilton getting a team, not with the Sabres and Toronto on each side. I could see Toronto getting a second team, with Winnipeg and Quebec City looking for teams.

What about Hartford?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

NHL will move teams to markets desperate for hockey.

In the next 10 years I fully expect teams in Kansas City and Hamilton and maybe even Northwest in Seattle or Portland.

If all else fails there are plenty of hockey starved markets in Canada, such as Hamilton. Teams will make their way North before falling off the earth.

Do you really think moving some of these teams to those markets will automatically make them profitible? Sure there's the initial buzz, but I just don't see how Kansas City or Portland is going to support a team if Denver, St. Louis and Pittsburgh can't. Moving teams around from city to city just seems to be delaying the inevitable. Half the teams in the league couldn't make money in a better economic environment, I don't see how moving to another medium sized market will fix that.

[lungs]

I'm not sure where the idea that baseball talent is diluted comes from? Any baseball contraction would have to do with the economic realities and would have nothing to do with talent being diluted.

Baseball's talent base is as big as ever.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by lungs

I'm not sure where the idea that baseball talent is diluted comes from? Any baseball contraction would have to do with the economic realities and would have nothing to do with talent being diluted.

Baseball's talent base is as big as ever.

Anytime you contract, the talent level gets better. I still think pitching is pretty weak throughout the league. Can you even name a starter on Pittsburgh or Baltimore these days?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Anytime you contract, the talent level gets better. I still think pitching is pretty weak throughout the league. Can you even name a starter on Pittsburgh or Baltimore these days?

Jim Palmer

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

NHL will move teams to markets desperate for hockey.

In the next 10 years I fully expect teams in Kansas City and Hamilton and maybe even Northwest in Seattle or Portland.

If all else fails there are plenty of hockey starved markets in Canada, such as Hamilton. Teams will make their way North before falling off the earth.

I don't see Seattle getting a hockey team, Vancouver is close enough and people here just don't care much for sports like they do in other parts of the country.

Plus no way a team is going to move to play in Key arena and if the city was going to build a new arena the Sonics may still be here.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Do you really think moving some of these teams to those markets will automatically make them profitible? Sure there's the initial buzz, but I just don't see how Kansas City or Portland is going to support a team if Denver, St. Louis and Pittsburgh can't. Moving teams around from city to city just seems to be delaying the inevitable. Half the teams in the league couldn't make money in a better economic environment, I don't see how moving to another medium sized market will fix that.

Toronto can fully support a second team. Hamilton could too if Buffalo and TOronto allow them in. Chances are you move the team with a new owner, and its a clean slate.

[kcchief19]

In today's modern era, leagues simply cannot contract teams. It's the kiss of death. Once a league starts down that road, it's a sign to investors and advertisers that the league is going down. Every league that has tried contraction as a way to improve standing has bitten the dust. Remember the IHL? Arena football is gone. Indoor soccer. The WNBA will be gone in two years and MLS will be on life support soon.

If the NHL starts contracting to survive, it's the beginning of the end of the league. It won't survive. I don't see the NBA trying contraction -- they have the money leaguewide to survive, they are just going to need to share the wealth they way they are doing. NFL will be OK but if they don't get a labor deal there is going to be a mess.

MLB shouldn't contract either. Baseball is cylical. The A's might have the toughest draw right now because they are essentially the No. 2 team in a media market that may not be big enough to support two teams. But that is cylical too. The A's could be on top and the Giants sucking for air in two years.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Toronto can fully support a second team. Hamilton could too if Buffalo and TOronto allow them in. Chances are you move the team with a new owner, and its a clean slate.

It's easier said than done. Moving a team into the same market as an established franchise with huge base doesn't mean they'll be able to make it. If a football team moved to Chicago, I'd still be a Bears fan. I just don't see people dumping the Maple Leafs because the Coyotes move in town.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's easier said than done. Moving a team into the same market as an established franchise with huge base doesn't mean they'll be able to make it. If a football team moved to Chicago, I'd still be a Bears fan. I just don't see people dumping the Maple Leafs because the Coyotes move in town.

This I agree with. However with so many Canadien players in the NHL, and Canadas huge sense of loyalty to these guys, I don't think it's the same circumstances. Plus people would love that Toronto/Toronto rivalry. It'd take time but I could see it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

and MLS will be on life support soon.

Aroo? MLS is going strong. And contracting Tampa and Miami may have been the smartest thing they've ever done.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Anytime you contract, the talent level gets better. I still think pitching is pretty weak throughout the league. Can you even name a starter on Pittsburgh or Baltimore these days?

Name recognition does not equal talent, though. Contraction would make the pool more talented but I'd argue that there is enough talent to go around to even expand baseball. Economically speaking that is a different story, of course.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by lungs

Name recognition does not equal talent, though. Contraction would make the pool more talented but I'd argue that there is enough talent to go around to even expand baseball. Economically speaking that is a different story, of course.

Name recognition or not, both teams will finish with an ERA over 5 this year.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

-The owner of the Royals (David Glass) is a Wal-Mart exec. He's actually been able to increase salary substantially thanks to the renovations of the stadium and Glass is making money hand-over-fist in his day job thanks to huge boosts in Wal Mart sales. The Royals are MUCH more secure financially than they were as little as 4-5 years ago.

I don't see how David Glass being a Wal Mart exec does anything for him. He wasn't one of Walton kids, so it's not like he got a huge inheritance, and he hasn't been CEO of Wal Mart since 2000, which he only was for 2 years anyways. He serves on the executive board, but I bet that pays him low 7-figures, at most- a great living by our standards, but not for a franchise owner. He probably has some stock options left from that time, but it hasn't made a ton of money over the past 10 years, it's been between $40 and $60. Where did it close today? $48- it's not exactly Google's stock.

He was and still is one of the "poorest" owners in MLB. It's just that a lot of the bigger money guys have come down over the last year- it's not as if he's made a bunch. I'm not suggesting we cry him a river as he's richer than any of us will probably ever be and the Royals have tripled in value while he's owned them (good luck getting a sale for $300M at the moment, tho). But it's not like every sweatshop toy and article of clothing WalMart sells gets him closer to some $100M bonus.

SI

[NoSkillz]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Toronto can fully support a second team. Hamilton could too if Buffalo and TOronto allow them in. Chances are you move the team with a new owner, and its a clean slate.

I don't think Hamilton is as good a market as you think it is...

First of all, Copps isn't up to NHL standards (ie: capacity and luxury suites) and would either have to be completely renovated or a new building would have to be erected. That costs a lot of coin.

Secondly, the economy in Hamilton isn't exactly strong - it's predominantly a steel making town, with a heavy industrial based economy and a few of the major steel makers (Stelco, HSB Steel) are having major liquidity problems. This means lots of layoffs, high unemployment and much less entertainment money for the residents.

Couple this with the fact that the Canadian dollar is at its weakest point in two years, which makes hitting a salary cap that much tougher for teams that aren't based in Montreal and Toronto.

Until the Cdn dollar gets back to par with the greenback and until the local economy improves, a team in Hamilton just isn't going to be feasible IMHO.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

In today's modern era, leagues simply cannot contract teams. It's the kiss of death. Once a league starts down that road, it's a sign to investors and advertisers that the league is going down. Every league that has tried contraction as a way to improve standing has bitten the dust. Remember the IHL? Arena football is gone. Indoor soccer. The WNBA will be gone in two years and MLS will be on life support soon.

If the NHL starts contracting to survive, it's the beginning of the end of the league. It won't survive. I don't see the NBA trying contraction -- they have the money leaguewide to survive, they are just going to need to share the wealth they way they are doing. NFL will be OK but if they don't get a labor deal there is going to be a mess.

MLB shouldn't contract either. Baseball is cylical. The A's might have the toughest draw right now because they are essentially the No. 2 team in a media market that may not be big enough to support two teams. But that is cylical too. The A's could be on top and the Giants sucking for air in two years.

quibble - MLS will not be on life support soon. they also haven't really contracted in YEARS - they've relocated a couple teams, but there has been a net EXPANSION of the league. and the wage-structure of the league is by all accounts, very well under control

[Young Drachma]

I don't think anyone will contract. They'd move a team first. Contraction signals the league -- especially for major leagues -- aren't healthy. Moves are more lucrative and there's always a sucker who'll take a team into his or her city if another one doesn't want them.

How are the Marlins going to contract? Did their stadium deal fall through and we didn't hear about it? I know the A's deal did fall through, but that team could easily find somewhere else to play.

[Young Drachma]

Major league sports survived through the depression. I see no reason why all of a sudden they'd just cease to exist at the top levels now. Yes, even hockey. It's way bigger business now and too many people stand to lose too much.

[Groundhog]

Our Australian basketball league had 13 teams last season. This season, 10, and the #1 team in the biggest market was on of the losses. Next season there could be at most 8, or as few as 6. Surely not a sign that things are going swimmingly. And it's certainly not a question of talent demanding contraction - our league is surprisingly strong, especially as far as guards go. It's just that teams in our big markets can't draw crowds, for whatever reason.

Well, that, and general incompetence from the NBL owners board.

[Rizon]

The A's are still around?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Major league sports survived through the depression. I see no reason why all of a sudden they'd just cease to exist at the top levels now. Yes, even hockey. It's way bigger business now and too many people stand to lose too much.

Different era, different finances. Leagues have expanded too much in the last couple decades.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Name recognition or not, both teams will finish with an ERA over 5 this year.

But if dilution of talent is the cause, wouldn't offense also be diluted? Why is pitching only affected?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lungs

But if dilution of talent is the cause, wouldn't offense also be diluted? Why is pitching only affected?

Because for some reason, people who like to cite that for silly things (like increase of home runs in baseball) don't take into account that it dilutes talent across the board and not just on one side of the ball

SI

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Different era, different finances. Leagues have expanded too much in the last couple decades.

No they haven't. Expanded poorly, maybe. But not too much.

[Young Drachma]

The players union would never consent to losing jobs. They'd go on strike to keep those jobs in tow. Contraction isn't going to happen if it didn't happen a decade and not even an insolvent Phoenix Coyotes team will go under. The league will take them over and eventually move them elsewhere. No league wants the stigma in this era of having eliminated teams, because that devalues all of the franchises.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Name recognition or not, both teams will finish with an ERA over 5 this year.

No matter many teams there are in a baseball league, the worst pitching staff is going to be considered "bad", and have an ERA over 5 (unless there's a drastic reduction in scoring in the league for some reason).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

No matter many teams there are in a baseball league, the worst pitching staff is going to be considered "bad", and have an ERA over 5 (unless there's a drastic reduction in scoring in the league for some reason).

I'd guess Santana or Webb or Peavy or pick-an-ace wouldn't have an ERA in the 2's if there were only 4 teams and they had to face an All-Star lineup every night

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

No they haven't. Expanded poorly, maybe. But not too much.

How can you say that? The NHL had half its teams last season take a loss. There are many more expected this year. This is after a massive change in the system that benefited the owners a great deal. Are you telling me the league expanded properly but has 15 wrong cities?

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

MLS will be on life support soon.

MLS finances are better than ever. New stadiums are opening up left and right, and the newest expansion team is closing in on 22,000 season tickets sales before they've even played a game.

Another team is entering the league next year, and the league will be announcing another two expansion teams (that bring in 40 million a piece up front) in the coming months.

Anyone talking shit about the future of MLS is quickly revealed as someone who hasn't paid even the slightet bit of attention to the league. Look under the hood and it's all positive.

[Young Drachma]

The only thing woeful about MLS is what single-entity does for fan interest of casual fans. (No off-season of discernable merit and an inability for teams to go after major free agents, means league is yawn fest of no-names...)

But it's kept the league alive and Arena Football proves that being alive is better than being dead and having separate owners.

And the league is indeed thriving. Soccer Specific stadiums are cropping up all over, it's pretty awesome really that we have a viable major soccer league here finally.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

The only thing woeful about MLS is what single-entity does for fan interest of casual fans. (No off-season of discernable merit and an inability for teams to go after major free agents, means league is yawn fest of no-names...)

But it's kept the league alive and Arena Football proves that being alive is better than being dead and having separate owners.

And the league is indeed thriving. Soccer Specific stadiums are cropping up all over, it's pretty awesome really that we have a viable major soccer league here finally.

I would imagine 'casual fans' have literally no idea wtf single entity is, or that their league is operating under that model.

Hardcore fans, probably. A casual fan doesn't obsessively track league structure, or generally even player movement outside his own team.

At this point the league has 13 owners of 15 teams (with it going to 14 of 16 next year). The Hunt's (as in Lamar Hunt [r.i.p] & family) own Columbus and Dallas, and AEG own L.A. Galaxy and 1/2 of Houston. It's moving towards a clone of the NFL model, but it might still be 10 years before every team is making a profit individually, so complete sharing of resources is a necessity for now. As you noted, survival is the first step for any league.

But most the heavy lifting has already been done in MLS. Seven teams have already built new, soccer stadiums since the league began (so that's 7 new stadiums in 13 years). A few more are under construction, and a few more in the last stage of planning. The few teams that have no stadium plans (New England, Seattle) are in excellent situations re: rent, etc so they have no need in the short-term to build a new home. Only DC is kind of in a bad stadium situation, but it hasn't been for lack of trying and they have easily one of the strongest fan bases.

The biggest frustration with MLS is how insanely low the salary cap is, but that's the reason it's made it this far. I thik we'll see some pretty serious growth there in the next few years... i believe the CBA is being renegotiated after this season.

All in all, i've followed this with an obsessive's attention - the league is really in fine shape.

[RainMaker]

I'm actually really surprised at how well the MLS has done, especially in Chicago. Last year I went to a game with some friends. I'm not a soccer fan although do enjoy the World Cup. I had a blast at the game though. The crowd was awesome and the stadium was really cool (it's one of the new soccer only stadiums).

My only gripe is that they don't really market toward guys like me. Perhaps that'll come in the future after they've built a solid base. I know they push heavily in the hispanic communities right now. I'd like to see them make a bigger effort though at younger kids. There are a lot of them playing soccer out in the suburbs and getting them tied into a team could really help these franchises for decades to come. One idea is to try and get the little league teams to use your jerseys and logos like little league baseball does.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm actually really surprised at how well the MLS has done, especially in Chicago. Last year I went to a game with some friends. I'm not a soccer fan although do enjoy the World Cup. I had a blast at the game though. The crowd was awesome and the stadium was really cool (it's one of the new soccer only stadiums).

My only gripe is that they don't really market toward guys like me. Perhaps that'll come in the future after they've built a solid base. I know they push heavily in the hispanic communities right now. I'd like to see them make a bigger effort though at younger kids. There are a lot of them playing soccer out in the suburbs and getting them tied into a team could really help these franchises for decades to come. One idea is to try and get the little league teams to use your jerseys and logos like little league baseball does.

I think the hispanic is somewhat the current marketing target. Cuathemoc Blanco was an absolutely huge signing in that regard for Chicago and the league. Analysis shows he's had near-Beckham level of impact on attendance league-wide, and in fairness he's been a notably better performer. So that 'targeting' might be even more deliberate in your area.

Maybe it varies by region, but I think for New York the league does a pretty good job of promoting itself to youth organizations (some would say, too good, in fact). Sometimes games are loaded with kids which an be a little irritating.

I think generally what they've got going on at the moment is trying to convert existing soccer fans into MLS fans. It makes a great deal of sense. There are millions of people in this country who following England, Spain, Italy, Mexico, Argentina, and other leagues very closely week in and week out, yet a very, very small % of those attend games of their local team.Apparently it's hard getting many of the 'eurosnob' crowd to attend what are admittedly games of a lower quality than they're used to watching.


I love soccer. I don't delude myself into believeing MLS is on par with the best leagues in the world - it ain't. But, MLS isn't a shit-pile either. It's a better league than it gets credit for, and you can tell because European teams either sign away the best players annually or sniff around 25 others.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What about Hartford?

No building. No team.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Name recognition or not, both teams will finish with an ERA over 5 this year.

Eh. Baltimore was at 5.15 last year with a horrific staff. I don't see how they don't take a quarter of a run off that...

Pittsburgh was at 5.10. Figure regression gets them back under 5.

Baltimore has a ton of pitching talent coming. They will be better soon.

I don't see why that means they need to contract. There are always going to be teams who finish last in ERA. There will just be more good lineups to go against if they contract.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by NoSkillz

I don't think Hamilton is as good a market as you think it is...

First of all, Copps isn't up to NHL standards (ie: capacity and luxury suites) and would either have to be completely renovated or a new building would have to be erected. That costs a lot of coin.

Secondly, the economy in Hamilton isn't exactly strong - it's predominantly a steel making town, with a heavy industrial based economy and a few of the major steel makers (Stelco, HSB Steel) are having major liquidity problems. This means lots of layoffs, high unemployment and much less entertainment money for the residents.

Couple this with the fact that the Canadian dollar is at its weakest point in two years, which makes hitting a salary cap that much tougher for teams that aren't based in Montreal and Toronto.

Until the Cdn dollar gets back to par with the greenback and until the local economy improves, a team in Hamilton just isn't going to be feasible IMHO.

Quick Triple Dola. You may as well talk about moving an MLB team to Brooklyn with the chances Toronto and Buffalo would let this happen.

[johneh]

I just hope the recession forces the Browns to be sold to a real owner

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

Quick Triple Dola. You may as well talk about moving an MLB team to Brooklyn with the chances Toronto and Buffalo would let this happen.

Yeah, the real solution to the revenue inequity between the Yankees (and to a lesser extent the Mets) and the rest of their leagues would've been to expand into the area, but I just don't see how, at this point doing so would work - just because you add a new N.Y. area franchise (and that includes New Jersey, Conneticut, etc) doesn't mean that they'll draw away many fans from the existing teams. I'm not sure if there was ever a great window for doing this, but it seems like something that is doomed to failure at this point.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Yeah, the real solution to the revenue inequity between the Yankees (and to a lesser extent the Mets) and the rest of their leagues would've been to expand into the area, but I just don't see how, at this point doing so would work - just because you add a new N.Y. area franchise (and that includes New Jersey, Conneticut, etc) doesn't mean that they'll draw away many fans from the existing teams. I'm not sure if there was ever a great window for doing this, but it seems like something that is doomed to failure at this point.

I play with this all of the time in OOTP. I've already identified where along the Shore towns is 75 miles from both NYC and Philadelphia in order to put a MLB team in Jersey.

There are other challenges, but it's one of those deals that would require a visionary and MLB doesn't really have many of those anymore. Major league sports period.

Seems the ones we have, all pretty much hang out in Dallas and are sorta asshats.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I play with this all of the time in OOTP. I've already identified where along the Shore towns is 75 miles from both NYC and Philadelphia in order to put a MLB team in Jersey.

There are other challenges, but it's one of those deals that would require a visionary and MLB doesn't really have many of those anymore. Major league sports period.

Seems the ones we have, all pretty much hang out in Dallas and are sorta asshats.

Cuban buys Cubs?

[DaddyTorgo]

i think the real problem with putting a third team in the NYC area or LI area or NJ area is that your window to achieve success is going to be so incredibly small before the fans stop giving your team a chance and go back to the old standbys

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i think the real problem with putting a third team in the NYC area or LI area or NJ area is that your window to achieve success is going to be so incredibly small before the fans stop giving your team a chance and go back to the old standbys

It could work. Not Long Island, that's too suburban and that's still New York. Gotta go to the Jersey Shore, gotta do it in Central Jersey. You do that, it works. Other things too. I've spent too much time researching how it'd work, I've explained it before. Population of Central Jersey alone puts it in the same class of franchises like Seattle, Minnesota, Miami and Phoenix.

Just trust me. With the right ownership, it could work extremely well. No one has done it, because it'd take intimate knowledge of the area, the will to do it and vision. Hard stuff to come by.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i think the real problem with putting a third team in the NYC area or LI area or NJ area is that your window to achieve success is going to be so incredibly small before the fans stop giving your team a chance and go back to the old standbys

Would never happen. Don't forget the Phillies have a decent fan base there also, plus the traffic alone wouldn't make it feasable. It's bad enough we get a million New Yorkers wrecking our homes every summer, adding 40K people a day trying to get to a ball game, no way.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

It could work. Not Long Island, that's too suburban and that's still New York. Gotta go to the Jersey Shore, gotta do it in Central Jersey. You do that, it works. Other things too. I've spent too much time researching how it'd work, I've explained it before. Population of Central Jersey alone puts it in the same class of franchises like Seattle, Minnesota, Miami and Phoenix.

Just trust me. With the right ownership, it could work extremely well. No one has done it, because it'd take intimate knowledge of the area, the will to do it and vision. Hard stuff to come by.

It would never work in a million years, but just for curiosity sake, where exactly on the shore are you thinking?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i think the real problem with putting a third team in the NYC area or LI area or NJ area is that your window to achieve success is going to be so incredibly small before the fans stop giving your team a chance and go back to the old standbys

The Mets were terrible for a decade and they turned out just fine. The metropolitan area is just so big you could have it in a place an hour+ less commute for a couple million people than going to either the Bronx or Queens. That alone will ensure decent attendance numbers, even if merchandising and TV numbers take a generation to catch up.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

The Mets were terrible for a decade and they turned out just fine. The metropolitan area is just so big you could have it in a place an hour+ less commute for a couple million people than going to either the Bronx or Queens. That alone will ensure decent attendance numbers, even if merchandising and TV numbers take a generation to catch up.

I agree with that but the Jersey Shore ( where I grew up) isn't the place. The traffic there in the summer is already a nightmare.

[cthomer5000]

I think something truly in central jersey that could even draw Staten Islander's would work. Not that this thought really matters, but it's an interesting hypothetical.