View Single Post
01-29-2013, 12:23 AM
Registered User
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 9,898
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin View Post
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.
I could have sworn I saw somewhere that it was a 15% of the workforce commuting into the city but I can't find it.

I'm not saying Kitchener-Waterloo or Barrie shouldn't be associated with Toronto when it comes to sports or Abbotsford shouldn't be associated with Vancouver. I know that metro areas aren't the end all be all when it comes to support of pro sports teams. I know the Brewers draw a ton of people from Madison (a little over an hour away) and the Fox Valley and Green Bay (1.5-2 hours away), they even draw from near Minnesota and have regular bus trips down to Miller Park. None of those cities are counted in Milwaukee's metro area or are even close to it.

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.
It seems awful location and awful stadium would account for awful attendance.

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.
No they're not strange. A 4.89 rating (which is what the Rays drew last year) means that 88,000+ households on average tuned in to watch the Rays on an average night. That shows definite interest from the fans, they just don't want to drive to a remote part of the area to watch a game in a crappy stadium that's out of the way for most of them. That's reasonable and it's part of the reason they need a new stadium and why the Rays owner is pushing for one.

And the one link that didn't mention the Rays showed the bottom 5 in ratings, which didn't have the Rays because you said the Rays had the worst ratings in baseball which isn't even close to true.

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?
Once again this has nothing to do with my point. My point was the Rays aren't even close to having the worst ratings in MLB, which you stated they did. Of course an ad for the Dodgers is worth more than it is for the Rays. Of course it's harder to draw ratings as a huge market where there are multiple options than it is for a smaller market where options are more limited. Where did I say they didn't? By the way, a 4.89 HH rating in Tampa is more households than the 1.12 rating the Angels drew by about 15,000.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline   Reply With Quote