It also cites the Bay Area's total personal income as $375.5 billion, a figure much higher than the numbers I listed in the previous post. I don't know how they arrived at this figure so I've lobbed a request for clarification. Even with this higher figure, there's little room for new franchises. Over the span of three weeks in February, the Bay Area will field four sporting events unrelated to the four major leagues:
- AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am (PGA Tour; Yes it's outside the Bay Area technically, but it attracts a large number of Bay Area attendees)
- SAP Open (ATP Tour; the yearly men's tour stop in the Bay Area)
- Tour of California (UCI; new cycling event with four Bay Area stages)
- US vs. Japan (pre World Cup "friendly" at AT&T/SBC Park)
Even more interesting is the Florida article, which concludes that the Marlins wouldn't be automatically be destined for greener pastures if they relocated outside South Florida. The same can be assumed about the A's and their situation in the Bay Area as well.
4 comments:
The definitions are at the BEA's website - here are the counties included for SJ/SF/Oak ("BEA Economic Area #146" on their website):
146: San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA (EA) (57146)
Alameda, CA (06001)
Calaveras, CA (06009)
Contra Costa, CA (06013)
Del Norte, CA (06015)
Humboldt, CA (06023)
Lake, CA (06033)
Marin, CA (06041)
Mendocino, CA (06045)
Merced, CA (06047)
Monterey, CA (06053)
Napa, CA (06055)
San Benito, CA (06069)
San Francisco, CA (06075)
San Joaquin, CA (06077)
San Mateo, CA (06081)
Santa Clara, CA (06085)
Santa Cruz, CA (06087)
Solano, CA (06095)
Sonoma, CA (06097)
Stanislaus, CA (06099)
Trinity, CA (06105)
Tuolumne, CA (06109)
Curry, OR (41015)
I am even more curious about the methodology for determining the TPI thresholds. You are bringing up good points about other events besides the big 4 sports but my viewpoint is that many of those events are more portable without a massive stadium investment, plus the other areas have similar events as well (so maybe that was factored into the analysis? Who knows).
It's been said that you can solve a lot of MLB's problems by putting a third team in New York. According to the data, you could even get away with a fourth(or fifth) team, plus another one in LA.
I mean, how many McDonalds are there in NY and LA as compared to other markets? The regions are just not balanced properly.
The question is, "how do you do it?" MLB should look down the road to the day that any of the NY and LA owners sell their teams, and coordinate any kind of territory compensation in line with those sales. George Steinbrenner will be the toughest to deal with, but he aint gonna be around forever.
New York had three teams for over 50 years, and lord knows how much the region has grown since. And the whole "Inland Empire" region of Southern California has grown large enough to merit consideration.
So whaddya think? Baseball moves its two weakest franchises to New Jersey and San Bernardino. The question is, would the A's be one of those teams?
Rob,
I would argue that the A's stay put in the Bay Area because, while our current population is a shade under 7 million, where do you think the pop will stand, say, in 10 years? Who knows, but perhaps in the future 3 MLB teams in the Bay Area won't be out of the question. We could also use another NBA team down here in San Jose (perhaps another subject for another blog)...enjoy this beautiful day everyone!
I contact bizjournals editor G. Scott Thomas about the study's methodology. As you said, TCL, they are using the Economic Area definition instead of a smaller, more focused MSA grouping. I find the use of Economic Areas a bit too generous, but the net effect isn't a difference maker, at least as far as sports franchises in the Bay Area are concerned.
The spreadsheet can be found here.
Post a Comment