urbanSTL

moorlander wrote:so if we're going to have another downtown franchise wouldn't it be better to have a NBA franchise? More games, more impact downtown?

Yep. And while it'd probably need to come with $50-$100 million renovation to the Scottrade Center (not to accommodate basketball, which it can already do, but just to make it more of a top venue), it'd be a lot cheaper of an investment.

That said, the NBA is pretty much not even on the table for St. Louis. Not sure there's any hope of that at all.

IF the stadium lands MLS in addition to the NFL, it would go a long way towards increasing the impact, but it's still an expensive cost in dollars and buildings.

blzhrpmd2 wrote:While all those points are valid, it is such a shame that we have to raise them. An owner who cared would eliminate our need to justify an unfortunate loss.

Agreed. As I've said before, two of the most unlikeliest things have gone against us, and both had to happen for us to be in this spot.

The worst lease in modern sports history (which is "our" fault, but in truth it's the fault of a handful of city leaders from 20 years ago), and an owner who isn't willing to make any effort whatsoever to remain in his current market.

We got screwed.

To get this back going to the Blues... If the first period is any indication, the Blues will be in for a struggle with the injuries piling up. They're only down 1-0, but they're being massively outshot by the Lightning. They looked terrible. Hopefully they'll be able to re-group and get things a little more organized in the second.

jstriebel wrote:

moorlander wrote:so if we're going to have another downtown franchise wouldn't it be better to have a NBA franchise? More games, more impact downtown?

Yep. And while it'd probably need to come with $50-$100 million renovation to the Scottrade Center (not to accommodate basketball, which it can already do, but just to make it more of a top venue), it'd be a lot cheaper of an investment.

That said, the NBA is pretty much not even on the table for St. Louis. Not sure there's any hope of that at all.

Agreed with all of this. That said, if the NFL does leave St. Louis completely I'd imagine we'd be become a very attractive market for the NBA pretty quickly, and especially since that old TV deal with the former owners of the Spirits is finally settled and over with.

-RBB

blzhrpmd2 wrote:^jeez, is there a recording device in my kitchen? Verbatim a conversation with my dad last night late in the first period. Awesome win. Good to see VT and JS step up in big moments. Love goals like Vlad's that bank off the post.

Yep. They played a touch better in the 2nd and 3rd, but it really wasn't until the final 5 minutes that they got it going. And man, what a game to steal that was!

Elliott was a star, and our two young studs stepped up in the clutch.

Put a local ownership group together and all that stuff Above goes by the wayside

dweebe wrote:I disagree. With 30 teams right now the NBA has two easy slots to fill.

-Seattle is far and away #1 on the list as they solidly supported the Sonics for year. But they've got to get an arena.
-Las Vegas is also up there: but it looks like the NHL is winning that race.
-Kansas City has the Sprint Center still sitting there empty without a sports team.
-I'd even put Omaha and Louisville ahead of St. Louis is attractiveness to the NBA.

St. Louis and KC could split a "Missouri" team. There was a period in the early 70's where the current Sacramento Kings split time between KC and Omaha.

Perhaps we should pick up in the NBA thread, but my reasoning is that an NFL-less St. Louis would be far-and-away the largest MSA with only two of the four major sports represented.

• Agree with you that Seattle is priority #1 for the NBA.
• Vegas is attractive mainly because it has no team currently, but the reason it has no team currently is because teams are afraid to locate there. There are also nearly a million fewer residents there, and fewer still of the generational variety who haven't brought their hometown allegiences with them when the moved in during the boom. It's a legit option for any major sport, but it's not.. <puts on glasses> ... a sure bet. YYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• KC seems quite happy without a tenant in the Sprint Center; it's still quite busy. And they're currently a two-sport market (plus MLS). Should St. Louis lose the NFL then we're on much the same page sports-wise but with 3/4 million more in population and it's own nearly-ready stadium to use.
• I can see Omaha as an option. I know the Oklahoma City experiment of being the first major sport into the market was quite a success, and its' something the NBA wouldn't mind repeating. But still, Omaha's MSA is only 2/3 the size OKC's and not quite 1/3 the size of the St. Louis MSA.
• Louisville, at 1.25M in its MSA would be more of a threat; it's not much smaller than OKC and they do like their basketball down there.

I can see the NBA eventually considering adding two teams (not soon, but in 5-10 years), plus a relocation or two. Not saying all will happen or would be even possible, but the next time something comes up I'd think we'd be in play. And there's a chance there'll be more than two opportunities, though obviously nothing is concrete.

-RBB

Bought the 7 game pack so I'm guaranteed playoff tix. Could this be the year?

rbb wrote:
Perhaps we should pick up in the NBA thread, but my reasoning is that an NFL-less St. Louis would be far-and-away the largest MSA with only two of the four major sports represented.


-RBB

Seattle and San Diego would like a word with you.

dweebe wrote:

moorlander wrote:Bought the 7 game pack so I'm guaranteed playoff tix. Could this be the year?

Spoken like a true Blues fan.

The Blues didn't do any blocking moves this year so we'll see how many dirty Blackhawks fans make it down on Sunday. Stubhub shows the cheapest pair of nosebleed seats to be $130/ticket.

I'll be there Sunday. Hopefully more fans hold onto their tickets then they have in the past. It's sad how many blackhawks fans come down.

Not gonna lie, I considered putting the April chicago game on stub hub. Sell two tickets to that game would pay for about 50% of the 7 game pack. I'm gonna sell tix for the tank bobble head game. I'm not into trinkets.

I'm only bothering to comment because the thread happens to be active (not because I'm a debbie downer). But the 13-game point streak doesn't appear headed towards becoming 14th.

The injuries and the heavy schedule seems like it will finally catch up with them. Less than halfway into this one, and the Blues are losing 4-0 in Columbus. YIKES.

Not a crisis, although I'm nervous about the Chicago game. Blues actually haven't looked very good the last few games with the injuries. They've just pulled a couple of them out. It wouldn't shock me if this became a bit of a slump. And that's ok. It happens.

Before I could hit "submit" the Blues get one back on the PP. Down 4-1 now. Still doesn't look good, but you never know...

ricke002 wrote:

rbb wrote:
Perhaps we should pick up in the NBA thread, but my reasoning is that an NFL-less St. Louis would be far-and-away the largest MSA with only two of the four major sports represented.


-RBB

Seattle and San Diego would like a word with you.

Fair point re: Seattle. That's one reason the NBA was foolish to allow its team to leave, and why there's such strong support to re-enter. It really is a no-brainer for the NBA IMO.

San Diego at least has LA and all of its teams within driving distance, even though that's not technically within its MSA; I'd thought of it but didn't consider it an appropriate comparison for that reason. But the point does stand.

-RBB

Um...Miami has 2? "Whush you talkin' bout Willis?"

Alex, I'll take the Florida Panthers for 1000 please.

I'll take the Miami Heat, Dolphins and Marlins for 3000 please.

chaifetz10 wrote:Indianapolis only has two, Cincinatti, Kansas City, Baltimore, Miami, and Nashville only have two. Portland and Oklahoma City only have one. You can't determine a success of a city by hoe many sports teams it has. I'd take Portland with just one team over Oakland with its three teams (A's, Raiders, Warriors) any day.

I don't think you're understanding my point. Please keep in mind I'm not using the number of sports teams to determine the success of St. Louis as a city. My premise has been that St. Louis becomes a more attractive option to the NBA if the NFL leaves specifically because there's an opportunity to recover sports moneys no longer being spent on the NFL. In that specific scenario it would be one of the largest, if not the largest, areas with fewer options for people and business to spend their sports dollars on. Plus, a new or relocated franchise could immediately move into the ScotTrade center, meaning an owner wouldn't need to build a new stadium from scratch and could share operating costs with another tenant.

Note that St. Louis wouldn't be the *only* option for a market for the NBA to enter; just that it'd be an attractive option, maybe moreso than some have considered. With that in mind:

Indianapolis MSA = 33rd-ranked, roughly 1 million fewer people than the St. Louis MSA.

Kansas City MSA = 30th-ranked, roughly 800,000 fewer people than the St. Louis MSA

Nashville MSA = 36th-ranked, just over one million fewer people than the St. Louis MSA.

Miami MSA = 8th-ranked, roughly twice the size of the St. Louis MSA. But it has the Heat already (as well as the Dolphins, Marlins, and the Florida Panthers who play a half hour north of Miami proper but in the MSA). So not a competitor to St. Louis for a new or relocated NBA team.

Baltimore MSA = roughly the same size as the St. Louis MSA. But the Washington Wizards are an hour away, and the 76ers are just over two hours away. As I'd qualified before I don't consider MSAs with teams within driving distance to be potential competitors with St. Louis for a new or relocated NBA franchise. I don't think the NBA would want to shoehorn another team there, but MLB has teams in all three cities so I couldn't rule it out.

Portland MSA = 26th-ranked, roughly 500,000 fewer people than the St. Louis MSA. But it has an NBA franchise already.

Oklahoma City MSA = 46th-ranked, less than half the number of poeple than the St. Louis MSA. And it has an NBA franchise already.

I didn't think that would be such a controversial stance to take. Apologies to those interested in Blues news for derailing the thread.

-RBB