View Single Post
Old
01-28-2013, 10:01 PM
  #32
Nullus Reverentia
Registered User
 
Nullus Reverentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The Periphery
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 17,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralsFan24 View Post
If 15% of Barrie's or Kitchener's or Waterloo's population commutes to Toronto for work, then yes they would be considered part of the metropolitan area if they were in the U.S. Since both are over an hour away from Toronto I find it unlikely that 15% of the population does commute there.



Considering it's 45 minutes to the closest U.S. city from Vancouver, I once again highly doubt that any county in Washington would be considered part of the Vancouver metro area.



Did you ever consider that they have a weaker fanbase because of their stadium and where it's located?



http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgo...y-area/1272064



You're the one who's quite misinformed. The Rays actually have very good TV ratings which shows interest but once again Tropicana Field is in a horrible location which is part of the reason they want a new stadium in a different location so it's accessible to more people who can get there in a reasonable amount of time.

http://www.draysbay.com/2012/10/8/34...istorical-2012

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/J.../MLB-RSNs.aspx

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/J.../MLB-RSNs.aspx

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2010...v-ratings-red/
I can find no sources that substantiate your claim that US measures metropolitan population based on 15% or more of the population commuting to that city. The sources I find say that they could any neighbour population centers as part of the metropolitan area if they are tied socioeconimically to the core urban center, or the core city having substantial infleunce over neighbouring centers. Those are very broad definitions, and it fits cities like Barrie and Kitchener-Waterloo being connected to Toronto. It also fits much of the Pacific northwest surrounding Vancouver, including communities along the BC-Washington border.

The location arguement has been one refuted by Tampa's owner himself as the primary reason (He point to economic reasons, and almost always says the location is an aggrevating issue, not the primary one). The bigger factor is how awful the stadium is, but it still doesn't explain horrible attendence. Tampa has had trouble giving tickets away. It's an awful stadium, in a poor location, however, that cannot account for the fact attendence is awful beyond belief.

Your links are strange, one doesn't even talk about the Rays, another says they are 5th in TV ratings (Something that seems off, and when look into it further, it is) and another that says they are a "thorn in the side of MLB" with how bad their fanbase is. Digging deaper, the reason the Dodgers and Angels are so "bad" for their TV ratings is their potential audience is massive, and they don't draw the same % of fans as smaller markets.

Quote:
The Phillies were the only team from a top ten market in the top five, averaging an 8.30 on Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia.
This quote illustrates that point. This doesn't mean that the bigger market teams have weaker fanbases, it means that it's harder to draw amazing ratings in bigger markets. Do you think an add during a Dodger's game goes for less than an ad during a Rays game?

The Rays are an atrocious market with a poor owner, who only make money because revenue sharing is so damned high in the MLB. They will be moved, who know's where that'll be, but it's ludicrous to suggest (As the person I replied to suggested) that the Canucks are in worse shape than the Rays, and that Vancouver and/or Montreal are bad markets. Either one of them could support a MLB team, and either one is a better option than Tampa Bay, and are no worse options than Portland or Charlotte.

Nullus Reverentia is online now   Reply With Quote