Why is San Antonio considered a small market team...

[Stillwater]

Unfortunately I think it has more to do with the popularity of the sport (or any given sport) for that matter based mostly on demographics. I think it is a faulty system really. Just because the San Antonio area is predominantly Latino should not be a factor in determining the market, but may in fact play a role if said team does not employ Latino players to attract the more wayward fans aka people just looking for entertainment in their area that would not otherwise care about the NBA that would not otherwise be attracted to it, but never should factor the race of anyone that is already a fan of the sport.
Big city doesn't equate to big market necessarily, but immensely diverse and extremely large cities do fall into that big market category, because it is easier to have a strong following based on the shear number of kids growing up in metropolitan locations where playing basketball is king instead of herding cattle or going to rodeos & whatever else they stereotypically do growing up in Texas or any other nearby & easily accessible rural area even if your home is in the metro.Not to say farmers don't play basketball, but they don't play it exclusively.

[Clemenza]

Ahhh yeah that would make sense to include the metro area. I guess I was just surprised to hear SA is the second largest city in TX behind HOU. Again tho probably ignoring the metro areas (I'm assuming DAL + Fort Worth >>> SA)

Population wise SA is roughly the same as Dallas, but yeah adding Fort Worth area then it's no comparison. Same as Greater Houston area, which includes Woodlands and Sugar Land (and Katy too I think), although in Woodlands you will find a lot of Mavs/Cowboys/Rangers fans.

I give it 5-8 years before SA and Austin combine into one dense populated area, kind of like the OC was to LA back in the 70's -80's. Sad, I moved here from LA because I wanted the small-town feel of it, oh well can't keep people from moving here from all over.

You can keep moving east to Riverside for the small-town feel of it, oh wait...

Right, to get that small-town feel anywhere close in LA you'll have to move to Lancaster/Palmdale/Blythe or more than 100 mile radius for sure.. LMAO.

You never been to El Segundo? Its nickname is Mayberry btw

[Texas_Lakers]

Yes, there is barely any real country side at all. I used to make the drive daily.

Just because one road between the two cities is fairly built up doesn't make that a continguous metro area. 80 miles is really too far apart to be considered the same city. I bet if you went a mile or two off that road you are in some deep country. Akron for instance is only 35 miles from Cleveland and that place is barely considered apart of the same metro area, and it is built up and connected with lots of suburbs and people work and commute from both places quite heavily.

I agree with this. The Austin/SA I-35 corridor is getting built up, but that's from two cities individually expanding, not combining. Austin's northward growth is going on much faster right now. That 84-mile gap is just too far for any sort of union to happen. Unless there's some futuristic railway coming soon, it won't ever be more than a novelty for people to commute between cities for work daily (yes, I'm sure all of us in Cen-Tex know someone who has done it). It's more likely that one of the Austin suburbs (Round Rock) will grow into a legit Fort Worth--like city than for SA and Austin to become homogeneous.

Maybe some reading will help you understand and provide you an idea of what one of the fastest growing areas in the country means, and no, OHIO or any other mid-west areas do not have this surge of population close to what it is here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/10/13/the-next-great-american-metropolis-is-taking-shape-in-texas/#6723678c1e2f

[Texas_Lakers]

Population wise SA is roughly the same as Dallas, but yeah adding Fort Worth area then it's no comparison. Same as Greater Houston area, which includes Woodlands and Sugar Land (and Katy too I think), although in Woodlands you will find a lot of Mavs/Cowboys/Rangers fans.


You can keep moving east to Riverside for the small-town feel of it, oh wait...

Right, to get that small-town feel anywhere close in LA you'll have to move to Lancaster/Palmdale/Blythe or more than 100 mile radius for sure.. LMAO.

You never been to El Segundo? Its nickname is Mayberry btw

Hey, I worked in El Segundo right before I moved to SA....Mariposa and Sepulveda at the Raytheon building. How bout that hahaha.

[Texas_Lakers]

Unfortunately I think it has more to do with the popularity of the sport (or any given sport) for that matter based mostly on demographics. I think it is a faulty system really. Just because the San Antonio area is predominantly Latino should not be a factor in determining the market, but may in fact play a role if said team does not employ Latino players to attract the more wayward fans aka people just looking for entertainment in their area that would not otherwise care about the NBA that would not otherwise be attracted to it, but never should factor the race of anyone that is already a fan of the sport.
Big city doesn't equate to big market necessarily, but immensely diverse and extremely large cities do fall into that big market category, because it is easier to have a strong following based on the shear number of kids growing up in metropolitan locations where playing basketball is king instead of herding cattle or going to rodeos & whatever else they stereotypically do growing up in Texas or any other nearby & easily accessible rural area even if your home is in the metro.Not to say farmers don't play basketball, but they don't play it exclusively.

They (farmers) around here do it better, they play in cowboy boots and they hoop pretty darn good.

[Wadzup]

So I guess if you include metro areas into market size...why stop there? Cleveland is the only NBA team in the state of Ohio which means its fan base and potential market spread to Akron (duh), Youngstown, Canton, Columbus and even Cincy. Shouldn't this be factored in when talking about market size of NBA TEAMS?

IMO there should be a difference in the market size with regards to a shoe/clothing store versus the market size of a team where your competition is other teams...much of which is dictated by location

On the other hand, California is split between LAL, LAC, SAC and GS so their market size should be split IMO. The market size of the Knicks should not include the entire metro area of NYC bc they have to split it with the Nets...Same goes for LA

Metro represents a city. A State doesn't. People in Cincinnatti have nothing in common with the people in Cleveland. They don't work in Cleveland, they dont' watch Cleveland TV, identify with Cleveland sports, many have never even been there and vice versa. Have you ever met a Clevelander that gives a **** about the Reds or Bengals? Pittsburgh, Toronto and Detroit are all closer to Cleveland than Cincinnati (**** I can't even spell the place correctly).

City lines and state lines are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. Metro areas are actually very representive of real things and real places. The people in the Cleveland metro and suburbs identify with Cleveland, they work, shop, play, have friends and family throughout the area. Even the people of Akron do because it is not very far away. People of Youngstown, Toledo, or Columbus do not or only to a very small degree.

I agree that there are very little cultural similarities between Cleveland and Cincinnati, but the Cavs are definitely a regional (statewide) team. That is because they are the only NBA team in Ohio and their games are aired statewide on FS Ohio. That plays a big part in who people root for.

For example, lets say Cleveland didn't have the Indians and every Cincinnati Reds games was aired in Cleveland on Fox Sports Ohio, there is no doubt the Reds would be the most popular MLB team in Cleveland. Granted, the Reds wouldn't have nearly the following in Cleveland as the Indians have because you would lose all the casual fans who only like the Indians because they are a Cleveland team, but the Reds would be the team a majority of the baseball fans here gravitated toward (especially if they were consistently winning like the Cavs have been during the LeBron era).

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

It's 24th based on this estimate (should look at metro area, not just city):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

So it's 25th, including Toronto. But some of those places don't have teams.

For sports markets I think the even larger combined statistical area is even more relevant than the MSA
I think the Austin metro area should be combined with the San Antonio Area.

If you live in Austin do you support the Spurs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

I didn't see SA or Austin on this list, and that doesn't make sense. Individually, either metro area is larger than most of the bottom 3/4 of the list. If you were to combine them, you'd probably see something close to Detroit. However, it's extremely debatable as to whether they should be considered the same area. DFW feels like one big city in the sense you can drive through those cities (and Arlington) without knowing you've changed cities. The distance between the two is half that or Austin to SA. Hell, you can literally get plane tickets between them.

Austin is a Spurs city insofar as we support them more than Dallas or Houston. I wouldn't be surprised to see our support wane if SA were to go through a tough stretch, though. San Antonio's Austin's sister, not it's twin. We should be considered part of the Spurs market, but not part of the SA market. The Spurs also have most of South and West Texas, though those definitely aren't part of the SA area.

I guess Austin and San Antionio were not on that list becacuse they are not considdered to be combined. I guess the smaller cities on the list have two small metropolitan areas that have sort of combined.

One Reason they combine metro areas is commuting patterns.. Do you get a place where a married couple has one spouse commuting to Austin while the other spouse commutes to San Antonio.

I guess I was wrong about combining Austin and San Antonio but that could change.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

For sports markets I think the even larger combined statistical area is even more relevant than the MSA
I think the Austin metro area should be combined with the San Antonio Area.

If you live in Austin do you support the Spurs?

Austin and San Antonio are two completley separate cities. They are not the same. They are 80 miles apart from each other with mostly county in between them.

Dallas and Fort Worth are the same metro area because one can live in one city and commute to the other for work, shopping, entertainment...etc. Austin and San Antonio are too far apart to do that.

Philly and New York City are also 80 miles apart from each other, are we going to argue that they should be the same metro area?

People in Austin don't root for the Spurs just because they are the closest NBA team. A person from Austin could easily be from Dallas or Houston or anywhere.

Have you driven on IH-35 from San Antonio to Austin? I make that drive on a monthly basis and I can tell you, it's NOT just country side on the side of the road between them, Schertz, Cibolo, New Braunfels, San Marcos, Buda among other small towns in-between are closing the gap on being a mostly populated area between Austin and San Antonio, in fact is one the fastest growing areas in the US.

The old AFL Boston Patriots needed a new Stadium. Before the AFL existed the NFL and TV networks had essentially given all of New England to the New York Giants and there were still a lot of Giants fans in New England. There is a split down the middle of Connecticut between Red Sox fans and Yankees fans.

The Patriots built their stadium half way between Boston and Providence Rhode Island. Providence has a fairly large Metroplitan Area. the Patriots renamed themselves New England instead of Boston because they did not want anybody in Providence or Sprinfiled MA to keep supporting the New York Giants. Hartford Conneticut is on the Red Sox side of the Yankees / Red Sox split and the Patriots also wanted the Hartford fans to abandon their allegencevtomthe New York Giants.

I wonder if stadiums half way between Austin and San Antonio would make sense.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

So I guess if you include metro areas into market size...why stop there? Cleveland is the only NBA team in the state of Ohio which means its fan base and potential market spread to Akron (duh), Youngstown, Canton, Columbus and even Cincy. Shouldn't this be factored in when talking about market size of NBA TEAMS?

IMO there should be a difference in the market size with regards to a shoe/clothing store versus the market size of a team where your competition is other teams...much of which is dictated by location

On the other hand, California is split between LAL, LAC, SAC and GS so their market size should be split IMO. The market size of the Knicks should not include the entire metro area of NYC bc they have to split it with the Nets...Same goes for LA

Metro represents a city. A State doesn't. People in Cincinnatti have nothing in common with the people in Cleveland. They don't work in Cleveland, they dont' watch Cleveland TV, identify with Cleveland sports, many have never even been there and vice versa. Have you ever met a Clevelander that gives a **** about the Reds or Bengals? Pittsburgh, Toronto and Detroit are all closer to Cleveland than Cincinnati (**** I can't even spell the place correctly).

City lines and state lines are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. Metro areas are actually very representive of real things and real places. The people in the Cleveland metro and suburbs identify with Cleveland, they work, shop, play, have friends and family throughout the area. Even the people of Akron do because it is not very far away. People of Youngstown, Toledo, or Columbus do not or only to a very small degree.

I agree that there are very little cultural similarities between Cleveland and Cincinnati, but the Cavs are definitely a regional (statewide) team. That is because they are the only NBA team in Ohio and their games are aired statewide on FS Ohio. That plays a big part in who people root for.

For example, lets say Cleveland didn't have the Indians and every Cincinnati Reds games was aired in Cleveland on Fox Sports Ohio, there is no doubt the Reds would be the most popular MLB team in Cleveland. Granted, the Reds wouldn't have nearly the following in Cleveland as the Indians have because you would lose all the casual fans who only like the Indians because they are a Cleveland team, but the Reds would be the team a majority of the baseball fans here gravitated toward (especially if they were consistently winning like the Cavs have been during the LeBron era).

Columbus Ohio shows up as a major metro area that gets combined with some near by cities.

[bwgood77]

Yes, there is barely any real country side at all. I used to make the drive daily.

Just because one road between the two cities is fairly built up doesn't make that a continguous metro area. 80 miles is really too far apart to be considered the same city. I bet if you went a mile or two off that road you are in some deep country. Akron for instance is only 35 miles from Cleveland and that place is barely considered apart of the same metro area, and it is built up and connected with lots of suburbs and people work and commute from both places quite heavily.

I'm not claiming it's one big metro area. They are clearly different cities. But there are a ton of small cities in between with not much space in between many of them.

[Village Idiot]

For sports markets I think the even larger combined statistical area is even more relevant than the MSA
I think the Austin metro area should be combined with the San Antonio Area.

If you live in Austin do you support the Spurs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

I didn't see SA or Austin on this list, and that doesn't make sense. Individually, either metro area is larger than most of the bottom 3/4 of the list. If you were to combine them, you'd probably see something close to Detroit. However, it's extremely debatable as to whether they should be considered the same area. DFW feels like one big city in the sense you can drive through those cities (and Arlington) without knowing you've changed cities. The distance between the two is half that or Austin to SA. Hell, you can literally get plane tickets between them.

Austin is a Spurs city insofar as we support them more than Dallas or Houston. I wouldn't be surprised to see our support wane if SA were to go through a tough stretch, though. San Antonio's Austin's sister, not it's twin. We should be considered part of the Spurs market, but not part of the SA market. The Spurs also have most of South and West Texas, though those definitely aren't part of the SA area.

I guess Austin and San Antionio were not on that list becacuse they are not considdered to be combined. I guess the smaller cities on the list have two small metropolitan areas that have sort of combined.

One Reason they combine metro areas is commuting patterns.. Do you get a place where a married couple has one spouse commuting to Austin while the other spouse commutes to San Antonio.

I guess I was wrong about combining Austin and San Antonio but that could change.

Precisely. You'll a note on that page prior to the table:

(Metropolitan Statistical Areas that are not combined with other MSAs or CBSAs are not also listed below).

the two cities are pretty far apart and it will take a long time for them to grow cohesive enough to be considered a CSA. Note that Orlando and Tampa are about the same distance apart and have a fairly large MSA in between them. Chicago and Milwaukee are also a similar distance apart as are New York and Philadelphia. Cincinnati is within 100 miles of Columbus, Louisville, Indianapolis and only 35 miles to Dayton.

[Stillwater]

Unfortunately I think it has more to do with the popularity of the sport (or any given sport) for that matter based mostly on demographics. I think it is a faulty system really. Just because the San Antonio area is predominantly Latino should not be a factor in determining the market, but may in fact play a role if said team does not employ Latino players to attract the more wayward fans aka people just looking for entertainment in their area that would not otherwise care about the NBA that would not otherwise be attracted to it, but never should factor the race of anyone that is already a fan of the sport.
Big city doesn't equate to big market necessarily, but immensely diverse and extremely large cities do fall into that big market category, because it is easier to have a strong following based on the shear number of kids growing up in metropolitan locations where playing basketball is king instead of herding cattle or going to rodeos & whatever else they stereotypically do growing up in Texas or any other nearby & easily accessible rural area even if your home is in the metro.Not to say farmers don't play basketball, but they don't play it exclusively.

They (farmers) around here do it better, they play in cowboy boots and they hoop pretty darn good.

I have never seen that in my life, did they have to leave early to go lasso some mules or anything? My point was no group of people should be pigeon holed but every group of people has stereotypes and that unfortunately has something to do with an strong NBA following. I have never been to a hockey game and couldn't care less about it, why? because I never played it & we didn't have it in my area or at my schools.

[Chinook]

Just because one road between the two cities is fairly built up doesn't make that a continguous metro area. 80 miles is really too far apart to be considered the same city. I bet if you went a mile or two off that road you are in some deep country. Akron for instance is only 35 miles from Cleveland and that place is barely considered apart of the same metro area, and it is built up and connected with lots of suburbs and people work and commute from both places quite heavily.

I agree with this. The Austin/SA I-35 corridor is getting built up, but that's from two cities individually expanding, not combining. Austin's northward growth is going on much faster right now. That 84-mile gap is just too far for any sort of union to happen. Unless there's some futuristic railway coming soon, it won't ever be more than a novelty for people to commute between cities for work daily (yes, I'm sure all of us in Cen-Tex know someone who has done it). It's more likely that one of the Austin suburbs (Round Rock) will grow into a legit Fort Worth--like city than for SA and Austin to become homogeneous.

Maybe some reading will help you understand and provide you an idea of what one of the fastest growing areas in the country means, and no, OHIO or any other mid-west areas do not have this surge of population close to what it is here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/10/13/the-next-great-american-metropolis-is-taking-shape-in-texas/#6723678c1e2f

This was condescending at hell. Anyone who's lived in Austin more than a year knows how fast it's growing. We also know in what direction it's growing. I don't know what that article says (not lowering the ad-block for it even though it's Forbes), but I imagine it's the same stuff we've been talking about.

I really feel like this thread is going off track if we're going to argue that NY and Philly are part of the same metro area -- no matter what fancy name you give for that distinction. Even if it becomes homogeneous, the two areas are not the same "market" for teams. That's really the point here. If Austin and SA are like MKE and CHI, NY and Philly or ORL and TAM, then we can clearly see why Austin and SA won't ever be the same market. It's not just about having a bunch of suburbs between cities; it's about having a regional identity spread out across a wide area.

[Uncommon]

I don't think so.

There are 5 Huge Television Markets. Metro areas with the population and resources to support multiple teams in the same sport.
1. NYC
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. DC
5. Bay Area

There are about 6 other markets which I listed earlier that are also large market teams. Things to consider if a team is a large market:
Do they have more than one airport?
Do they support 4 teams?
Do they have more than 6 million people?

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

In all seriousness, there is no designation of what officially constitutes a "big" market. The criteria that you listed probably help but they're not official or definite representations of a big market. A second airport doesn't necessarily mean a market big, as plenty of cities have more than 1 airport in the metro. Supporting 4 teams also doesn't mean that much considering cities like Denver (and until last year, Atlanta) have 4 teams in the metro. And 6 million people+ is simply an arbitrary number.

I don't disagree that there are only a few large markets in the NBA but until the census designates the definition of large, mid, and small markets, it really just boils down to conjecture. Either way, it truly doesn't matter. NBA writers are the only league writers that (stupidly) try to differentiate between market sizes, even though most fans (and Americans) have no idea what it means. You don't see NFL, MLB, or NHL writers focusing on this and consequently making the public falsely think big markets are somehow more desirable than small markets solely because of their population. Philly, for example, is an enormous city, but I sure as hell wouldn't call it a free agent hotbed. I sincerely hope we get away from this big market nonsense because not only does it make most people sound uninformed, but it contributes absolutely nothing and in fact, lends credence to the false narrative that players are looking up metro population before they make free agent decisions. These guys don't give a ****. They want money, and they want to have money on a team that provides them the best chance to win. Yes, there are a couple idiots like Dwight that think going to a big city makes you a bigger star, but the majority of players are not as stupid as Dwight.

No Its not my opinion.
I do this for a living. It is my job to know this sort of stuff.

There are 12 cities in the United States that are significantly larger than every other city out there.

These 12 cities constitute the "Big Market" teams because they have the largest television markets. Advertising in these cities is a whole lot more expensive than places like San Antonio or Cleveland.

These cities have large populations with lots of corporate support that small market teams do not have.

The reason the NFC East is the premier division in the NFL is that it is the only division where all of its teams are large market teams. Large Market teams are going to have more media and more attention because of the sheer number of people living in these places.



This is the order of those 12.
1. NYC 21 million
2. LA 18 million
3. Chicago 9.5 million
4. Washington DC 9.1 million
5. San Francisco Bay Area 8.6 millon


6. Boston 8.1 Million
7. Dallas 7.4 Million
8. Philadelphia 7.1 Million
9. Houston 6.8 Million
10. Miami 6.4 Million
11. Atlanta 6.1 Million
12. Detroit. 5.3 Million

There is big dropoff after Detroit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

There are not that many metro areas that have multiple large airports. If your city is big enough to support a major secondary airport then you are most likely a large market team. Emphasis on the Word "major"

For an example. Dallas Love Field has more visitors than San Antonio Internation Airport or Austin Bergstrom International Airport. Love Field is significantly smaller than DFW airport.

I'd love for you to point me in literally any direction that says that 6 million+ people is the definition of a "large market." I didn't think there was an official designation, but if you're truly in the business, then I'd like to find somewhere that says it officially. If you can prove that a combination of 4 or more sports teams, 2 or more major airports, and a certain population specifically characterizes a market size from a scholarly or official agency or other source, I'll gladly acquiesce. Because all of this frankly just sounds like your opinion without support. Most agencies can't even agree on the difference between a city and a town and yet, you're saying there's an official distinction between arbitrary and situational terms such as "large" and "not large"?

I'm 100% aware of the top MSAs and CSAs in the United States. I've been fascinated with the subject for over 2 decades. But you're not gonna convince me that there are 12 agreed-upon cities in the U.S. that are significantly larger than others and are designated "big-market" without a source. For example, why do you make a distinction between SF and Boston although they are (according to your numbers) separated by a mere 500,000 residents? Is 8.6 million people the cut-off from "enormous" to "large"? How silly does that sound without proof?

Also, you realize that not every major city is in a CSA right? So by the numbers you posted, Phoenix wouldn't even be on your list, although it's much bigger than Seattle, Orlando, and Minneapolis, which are the next 3 or 4 cities after your arbitrary cut-off point.

Whether or not you're truly in the business is 100% inconsequential. The fact remains: there simply are no official designations for big-market cities. Until you show me otherwise and use something other than your opinion, you are incorrect.

[rebirthoftheM]

I wonder what a big time marketable superstar would do for the Spurs marketability. Imagine Shaq had gone to the Spurs in 96 and stayed. I doubt they'd have the poor viewership like they did during the Pop/TD era and now the Kawhi era.

[Jonny Blaze]

For sports markets I think the even larger combined statistical area is even more relevant than the MSA
I think the Austin metro area should be combined with the San Antonio Area.

If you live in Austin do you support the Spurs?

Austin and San Antonio are two completley separate cities. They are not the same. They are 80 miles apart from each other with mostly county in between them.

Dallas and Fort Worth are the same metro area because one can live in one city and commute to the other for work, shopping, entertainment...etc. Austin and San Antonio are too far apart to do that.

Philly and New York City are also 80 miles apart from each other, are we going to argue that they should be the same metro area?

People in Austin don't root for the Spurs just because they are the closest NBA team. A person from Austin could easily be from Dallas or Houston or anywhere.

Have you driven on IH-35 from San Antonio to Austin? I make that drive on a monthly basis and I can tell you, it's NOT just country side on the side of the road between them, Schertz, Cibolo, New Braunfels, San Marcos, Buda among other small towns in-between are closing the gap on being a mostly populated area between Austin and San Antonio, in fact is one the fastest growing areas in the US.

At the moment Im typing this response to you I'm at Houston Hobby airport headed to San Antonio for business. Ive done that drive between San Antonio to New Braunfels to San Marcos to Austin for over 20 years.
I'm in San Antonio at least once a month.

Austin and San Antonio are not the same metro area and never will be.

If you live in South Austin you are not commuting to San Antonio to go the North Star mall, work, or Vice Versa.

How many people do you know that live in Austin and work in San Antonio or vice versa? I don't know a single person that would do that.

Someone that lives in Ft Lauderdale can easily make it to Miami in 30 minutes or less. Same with Dallas and Ft Worth.

There is no break between Washington DC and Baltimore. That is why all those cities belong in the same metro areas.

[Jonny Blaze]

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

In all seriousness, there is no designation of what officially constitutes a "big" market. The criteria that you listed probably help but they're not official or definite representations of a big market. A second airport doesn't necessarily mean a market big, as plenty of cities have more than 1 airport in the metro. Supporting 4 teams also doesn't mean that much considering cities like Denver (and until last year, Atlanta) have 4 teams in the metro. And 6 million people+ is simply an arbitrary number.

I don't disagree that there are only a few large markets in the NBA but until the census designates the definition of large, mid, and small markets, it really just boils down to conjecture. Either way, it truly doesn't matter. NBA writers are the only league writers that (stupidly) try to differentiate between market sizes, even though most fans (and Americans) have no idea what it means. You don't see NFL, MLB, or NHL writers focusing on this and consequently making the public falsely think big markets are somehow more desirable than small markets solely because of their population. Philly, for example, is an enormous city, but I sure as hell wouldn't call it a free agent hotbed. I sincerely hope we get away from this big market nonsense because not only does it make most people sound uninformed, but it contributes absolutely nothing and in fact, lends credence to the false narrative that players are looking up metro population before they make free agent decisions. These guys don't give a ****. They want money, and they want to have money on a team that provides them the best chance to win. Yes, there are a couple idiots like Dwight that think going to a big city makes you a bigger star, but the majority of players are not as stupid as Dwight.

No Its not my opinion.
I do this for a living. It is my job to know this sort of stuff.

There are 12 cities in the United States that are significantly larger than every other city out there.

These 12 cities constitute the "Big Market" teams because they have the largest television markets. Advertising in these cities is a whole lot more expensive than places like San Antonio or Cleveland.

These cities have large populations with lots of corporate support that small market teams do not have.

The reason the NFC East is the premier division in the NFL is that it is the only division where all of its teams are large market teams. Large Market teams are going to have more media and more attention because of the sheer number of people living in these places.



This is the order of those 12.
1. NYC 21 million
2. LA 18 million
3. Chicago 9.5 million
4. Washington DC 9.1 million
5. San Francisco Bay Area 8.6 millon


6. Boston 8.1 Million
7. Dallas 7.4 Million
8. Philadelphia 7.1 Million
9. Houston 6.8 Million
10. Miami 6.4 Million
11. Atlanta 6.1 Million
12. Detroit. 5.3 Million

There is big dropoff after Detroit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

There are not that many metro areas that have multiple large airports. If your city is big enough to support a major secondary airport then you are most likely a large market team. Emphasis on the Word "major"

For an example. Dallas Love Field has more visitors than San Antonio Internation Airport or Austin Bergstrom International Airport. Love Field is significantly smaller than DFW airport.

I'd love for you to point me in literally any direction that says that 6 million+ people is the definition of a "large market." I didn't think there was an official designation, but if you're truly in the business, then I'd like to find somewhere that says it officially. If you can prove that a combination of 4 or more sports teams, 2 or more major airports, and a certain population specifically characterizes a market size from a scholarly or official agency or other source, I'll gladly acquiesce. Because all of this frankly just sounds like your opinion without support. Most agencies can't even agree on the difference between a city and a town and yet, you're saying there's an official distinction between arbitrary and situational terms such as "large" and "not large"?

I'm 100% aware of the top MSAs and CSAs in the United States. I've been fascinated with the subject for over 2 decades. But you're not gonna convince me that there are 12 agreed-upon cities in the U.S. that are significantly larger than others and are designated "big-market" without a source. For example, why do you make a distinction between SF and Boston although they are (according to your numbers) separated by a mere 500,000 residents? Is 8.6 million people the cut-off from "enormous" to "large"? How silly does that sound without proof?

Also, you realize that not every major city is in a CSA right? So by the numbers you posted, Phoenix wouldn't even be on your list, although it's much bigger than Seattle, Orlando, and Minneapolis, which are the next 3 or 4 cities after your arbitrary cut-off point.

Whether or not you're truly in the business is 100% inconsequential. The fact remains: there simply are no official designations for big-market cities. Until you show me otherwise and use something other than your opinion, you are incorrect.

Please quite challenging me on this. Seriously.
You sound like you are angry because maybe your city is not considered a big market.

I will answer a few of your questions

"For example, why do you make a distinction between SF and Boston although they are (according to your numbers) separated by a mere 500,000 residents? Is 8.6 million people the cut-off from "enormous" to "large"? How silly does that sound without proof?

"

The Bay Area has not one, not two, but three large cities. Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose. Each of these cities has its own international airport.
The Bay Area is large enough to support multiple pro teams in the same sport
football (Raiders, 49ers)
baseball (athletics, Giants)

Boston isn't quite as big as the Bay Area. Providence, Rhode Island is not as populated as the cities in California.


Bay Area, Washington DC, Chicago, New York and Los Angeles are the only metro areas that are large enough to support multiple teams in the same sport.

If you do some critical thinking its not a hard leap to also realize that these cities are the 5 biggest metro areas in the country.
I wonder if that is a coincidence? [sarcasm]

That is why I separate the Bay Area from Boston


You made a point earlier about airports. Do you want to know what most big market cities have in common? They have multiple (large airports) in their metro area because these cities have the population and business commerce to support more than one airport.

I challenge you to name me a city that is not in the top 12 that has multiple busy airports.

"

Also, you realize that not every major city is in a CSA right? So by the numbers you posted, Phoenix wouldn't even be on your list, although it's much bigger than Seattle, Orlando, and Minneapolis, which are the next 3 or 4 cities after your arbitrary cut-off point

"
Who cares? What I am trying to educate you has completely gone over its head.

Phoenix is not on my list. We are not talking about major cities.

We are talking about the cities that would be considered "large market teams"

There are 12 cities with metro populations over 5 million. There are 11 cities with metro populations over 6 million. There is a difference of about 1 million people from #12 Detroit to #13 Seattle.

Seattle does not have an NBA or an NHL team. I would not consider them to be a large market team.


There is a clear line in the sand between the top 12 and everyone else.

Those top 12 cities are the big market teams.

I don't understand how you don't get this.

[Stillwater]

big market is not based solely on population numbers. It plays a factor esp in the largest cities like LA and NY where even when they are bad they get more media attn then a city with a really good young roster like Minnesota or a team with a superstar like Lebron who puts Cleveland in the media spotlight, but quickly fades as soon as he left for Miami. Had he played for the Lakers and left for Miami , the Lakers would still get a lot of media attn afterwards.
In contrast GSW was never considered a big market team until they became relevant despite being a largely populated area, and NY despite being mostly irrelevant for the longest time remain a media focal point being it is such a large metro area despite less national popularity.
Historically successful teams like Chicago,Boston etc along with their larger population numbers and tv viewers will always get more media attn then SA , because SA does not have the tv ratings in their metro area to justify the attn despite having a dynasty when Timmy was there.He is gone , so even what little attn they got although somewhat replaced by Pop being so good and Leo being an mvp candidate , will never match even Dallas who has a much larger sports oriented culture.

[Uncommon]

No Its not my opinion.
I do this for a living. It is my job to know this sort of stuff.

There are 12 cities in the United States that are significantly larger than every other city out there.

These 12 cities constitute the "Big Market" teams because they have the largest television markets. Advertising in these cities is a whole lot more expensive than places like San Antonio or Cleveland.

These cities have large populations with lots of corporate support that small market teams do not have.

The reason the NFC East is the premier division in the NFL is that it is the only division where all of its teams are large market teams. Large Market teams are going to have more media and more attention because of the sheer number of people living in these places.



This is the order of those 12.
1. NYC 21 million
2. LA 18 million
3. Chicago 9.5 million
4. Washington DC 9.1 million
5. San Francisco Bay Area 8.6 millon


6. Boston 8.1 Million
7. Dallas 7.4 Million
8. Philadelphia 7.1 Million
9. Houston 6.8 Million
10. Miami 6.4 Million
11. Atlanta 6.1 Million
12. Detroit. 5.3 Million

There is big dropoff after Detroit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

There are not that many metro areas that have multiple large airports. If your city is big enough to support a major secondary airport then you are most likely a large market team. Emphasis on the Word "major"

For an example. Dallas Love Field has more visitors than San Antonio Internation Airport or Austin Bergstrom International Airport. Love Field is significantly smaller than DFW airport.

I'd love for you to point me in literally any direction that says that 6 million+ people is the definition of a "large market." I didn't think there was an official designation, but if you're truly in the business, then I'd like to find somewhere that says it officially. If you can prove that a combination of 4 or more sports teams, 2 or more major airports, and a certain population specifically characterizes a market size from a scholarly or official agency or other source, I'll gladly acquiesce. Because all of this frankly just sounds like your opinion without support. Most agencies can't even agree on the difference between a city and a town and yet, you're saying there's an official distinction between arbitrary and situational terms such as "large" and "not large"?

I'm 100% aware of the top MSAs and CSAs in the United States. I've been fascinated with the subject for over 2 decades. But you're not gonna convince me that there are 12 agreed-upon cities in the U.S. that are significantly larger than others and are designated "big-market" without a source. For example, why do you make a distinction between SF and Boston although they are (according to your numbers) separated by a mere 500,000 residents? Is 8.6 million people the cut-off from "enormous" to "large"? How silly does that sound without proof?

Also, you realize that not every major city is in a CSA right? So by the numbers you posted, Phoenix wouldn't even be on your list, although it's much bigger than Seattle, Orlando, and Minneapolis, which are the next 3 or 4 cities after your arbitrary cut-off point.

Whether or not you're truly in the business is 100% inconsequential. The fact remains: there simply are no official designations for big-market cities. Until you show me otherwise and use something other than your opinion, you are incorrect.

Please quite challenging me on this. Seriously.
You sound like you are angry because maybe your city is not considered a big market.

I will answer a few of your questions

"For example, why do you make a distinction between SF and Boston although they are (according to your numbers) separated by a mere 500,000 residents? Is 8.6 million people the cut-off from "enormous" to "large"? How silly does that sound without proof?

"

The Bay Area has not one, not two, but three large cities. Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose. Each of these cities has its own international airport.
The Bay Area is large enough to support multiple pro teams in the same sport
football (Raiders, 49ers)
baseball (athletics, Giants)

Boston isn't quite as big as the Bay Area. Providence, Rhode Island is not as populated as the cities in California.


Bay Area, Washington DC, Chicago, New York and Los Angeles are the only metro areas that are large enough to support multiple teams in the same sport.

If you do some critical thinking its not a hard leap to also realize that these cities are the 5 biggest metro areas in the country.
I wonder if that is a coincidence? [sarcasm]

That is why I separate the Bay Area from Boston


You made a point earlier about airports. Do you want to know what most big market cities have in common? They have multiple (large airports) in their metro area because these cities have the population and business commerce to support more than one airport.

I challenge you to name me a city that is not in the top 12 that has multiple busy airports.

"

Also, you realize that not every major city is in a CSA right? So by the numbers you posted, Phoenix wouldn't even be on your list, although it's much bigger than Seattle, Orlando, and Minneapolis, which are the next 3 or 4 cities after your arbitrary cut-off point

"
Who cares? What I am trying to educate you has completely gone over its head.

Phoenix is not on my list. We are not talking about major cities.

We are talking about the cities that would be considered "large market teams"

There are 12 cities with metro populations over 5 million. There are 11 cities with metro populations over 6 million. There is a difference of about 1 million people from #12 Detroit to #13 Seattle.

Seattle does not have an NBA or an NHL team. I would not consider them to be a large market team.


There is a clear line in the sand between the top 12 and everyone else.

Those top 12 cities are the big market teams.

I don't understand how you don't get this.

Huh? I'm not angry at all. But you're straight up saying that your working in the business makes you qualified to pass off your OPINION as FACT. I have no personal stake in this matter at all lol. You come across as an incessant know-it-all spewing dogma when the truth is, you've still provided nothing that supports your arguments, just conjecture. Provide me a source that supports what you say, otherwise your opinion is nearly worthless, especially when you try to submit it as a fact. SUPPLY ME WITH SOURCES OR DO NOT RESPOND.

When you started quoting and correcting everyone, it seemed to me that you were knowledgeable but then you said "no this isn't my opinion, I work in the business." Get off your high horse. You still can't substantiate what you said from scholarly or official sources. So until you can, this conversation is over and you are still simply supplying your opinion and not any facts. SUPPLY ME WITH SOURCES OR DO NOT RESPOND.

[Village Idiot]

1. NYC 21 million
2. LA 18 million
3. Chicago 9.5 million
4. Washington DC 9.1 million
5. San Francisco Bay Area 8.6 millon


6. Boston 8.1 Million
7. Dallas 7.4 Million
8. Philadelphia 7.1 Million
9. Houston 6.8 Million
10. Miami 6.4 Million
11. Atlanta 6.1 Million
12. Detroit. 5.3 Million

I will answer a few of your questions

"For example, why do you make a distinction between SF and Boston although they are (according to your numbers) separated by a mere 500,000 residents? Is 8.6 million people the cut-off from "enormous" to "large"? How silly does that sound without proof?

"

The Bay Area has not one, not two, but three large cities. Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose. Each of these cities has its own international airport.
The Bay Area is large enough to support multiple pro teams in the same sport
football (Raiders, 49ers)
baseball (athletics, Giants)

Boston isn't quite as big as the Bay Area. Providence, Rhode Island is not as populated as the cities in California.

Bay Area, Washington DC, Chicago, New York and Los Angeles are the only metro areas that are large enough to support multiple teams in the same sport.

If you do some critical thinking its not a hard leap to also realize that these cities are the 5 biggest metro areas in the country.
I wonder if that is a coincidence? [sarcasm]

That is why I separate the Bay Area from Boston


You made a point earlier about airports. Do you want to know what most big market cities have in common? They have multiple (large airports) in their metro area because these cities have the population and business commerce to support more than one airport.

I challenge you to name me a city that is not in the top 12 that has multiple busy airports.

The Bay area is polycentric due to geographical constrictions that are quite unique. In New England towns and townships were well established before the industrial era so it was nearly impossible politically for a city to grow beyond established limits. Municipal boundaries are fairly arbitrary and if 1,000,000 people are in one municipality (San Jose) or multiple (Providence) has zero relevance on what matters for professional sports which are number of people , how much disposable income those people have, whether they are interested in professional basketball and willing to spend time and money on a team. Personally I think MSA definition is fine for looking at butts in seats potential while CSA is a good metric for eyes on screen.

In your top 12, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta and Detroit also only have one significant commercial airpot so there is clearly no correlation between ranking and number of airports. Atlanta is the prime example of a city with only one airport with commercial service. This is deliberate and the result of decades of political strong-arming by the politicians in Atlanta, in collusion with Eastern and then Delta, to create false scarcity of supply. This, together with location and long-term airline strategy, results in Hartsfield consistently being the #1 airport globally in terms of passengers. It also has a higher passenger count than the 3 Bay Area airports combined despite having a smaller population and much smaller economy.

I think big and small market is a false dichotomy. There are certainly more possible classifications. Here are mine with criteria based on both population and GDP. Note that as I only have GDP data for the top 50 MSA's I use MSA GDPs except for those MSAs that combine directly into a CSA. This is Riverside/San Bernie ->LA, Baltimore -> Washington, San Jose -> San Francisco, Providence ->Boston

Megamarkets (populaton >18 million, GDP>1 trillion) : New York, LA

Major markets (population between 6.4 million and 10 million and GDP between 317 and 672 billion: Washington -Baltimore, Chicago, SF Bay Area, Houston, Dallas - Ft. Worth, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Miami

Big markets (population over 3.8 million and GDP over 300 billion): Seattle, Detroit, Minneapolis-St. Paul, San Diego, Phoenix

Medium size markets (population over 2 million and GDP over 100 billion) Tampa, Denver, St. Louis, Charlotte, Orlando, San Antonio, Portland, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, Cincinnati, Las Vegas, Kansas City, Austin, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Raleigh-Durham, Salt Lake City, Milwaukie

Small markets: population > 1.2 million: Nashville, Virginia Beach/Norfolk, Jacksonville, OKC, Memphis, Lousiville, Richmond, New Orleans, Hartford/Springfield, Birmingham, Greensboro/Winston-Salem, Grand Rapids, Greenville, Harrisburg, Buffalo