Places which lost MLB, NHL, NFL, NBA or MLS teams which have not been replaced (or left an existing team in the market) (in the last 70 years, to avoid too much early-installment weirdness): Montreal Expos Oakland Golden Seals, and may lose the Raiders (again) Kansas City Scouts and Kings Atlanta Flames/Thrashers Hartford Whalers Quebec Nordiques Baltimore Bullets (Ravens replaced Colts) San Francisco 49ers and Warriors Saint Louis Cardinals/Rams and Hawks San Diego Chargers and Rockets/Clippers Tri-Cities Blackhawks (NBA) Fort Wayne Pistons Rochester Royals Syracuse Nationals Cincinnati Royals Buffalo Braves Vancouver Grizzlies Seattle SuperSonics Miami Fusion Tampa Bay Mutiny The San Francisco teams are a particularly weird example. They're not in San Francisco or its immediate environs, but both remain in the SJ-SF-Oak CSA. If you think of that as a single market, then San Francisco and Oakland shouldn't be listed. (Washington-Baltimore is also one CSA, and the Bullets moved from one to the other.) ETA: I left out defunct NBA teams... there are a whole bunch that folded in the late '40s, including teams in Pittsburgh and Toronto, as well as a host of small Midwestern cities. Perhaps a later date for a later-starting league would've been better.
Isn't San Francisco getting the Warriors back? EDIT: Plus it's kind of hard saying SF lost the 49ers when they're still called the San Francisco 49ers. That's kind of like saying Boston lost the Patriots because Foxboro is technically a suburb of Providence.
I charted every team in the five U.S. sports leagues by media market and primary census statistical area ranking (this chart is working on the assumption that Miami is a lock for MLS). In both the media market and PCSA charts, the smallest MLS market/expansion candidate is ranked at #36 (MLB is the only other league aside from MLS where every US market is above the red line). Every Top 36 media market is also part of a Top 36 PCSA and vice versa, except Austin, Hartford and Las Vegas. Aside from Vegas, these are also the only Top 36 media markets/PCSAs that currently don't have a Big 5 team. Based on where the 12 MLS expansion candidates are ranked in both charts and the importance of locking down as many major markets as possible, it's safe to say MLS won't go too far below the red line for expansion cities, if at all. I would be surprised if pro sports cities like Buffalo, Green Bay, Jacksonville, Memphis, New Orleans and Oklahoma City become serious contenders for MLS expansion anytime soon.
And this is where things get tricky using MSA/CSAs. Raleigh and Durham are two separate MSAs. Minneapolis and St Paul are one. For a brief period a couple decades back, Kansas City MO and Kansas City KS were split into two. Raleigh being the 24 media market, but 36th MSA is an artifact of this arbitrary split. As someone who has spent 34 or the last 35 years living in the Triangle, it's really one market. The other problem with using current census data is that MLS isn't looking to expand in 2015 or 2016 in perpetuity, but into what these markets will become. As financial statements say, "past performance isn't necessarily an indicator of future performance" but if the given markets grow for the next 25 years as they have for the last, Raleigh-Durham will have six million people by 2040. Personally, that's ridiculous. But whereas northern and iron belt cities like Cincy, Pittsburgh, Saint Louis are likely to continue being around the same size, parts of the southern tier (Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte, Austin) are lapping the field. In short Cincinnati has great support for their USL team, but they'd be the smallest media market in the league. Possibly forever. On the other hand (and I'm biased) the two North Carolina cities could very well be top 15 markets in 10-15 years. Charlotte is almost top 20 now, and Raleigh-Durham is in the process of passing Charlotte. When I got here, the Triangle was half the size of Charlotte, and a small city compared to my hometown of Kansas City.
And that's partly why the likes of Cleveland and Pittsburgh aren't even in the discussion for MLS expansion, despite being established pro sports markets. Those two areas plus Detroit all recorded negative population growth, according to the PCSA data (although Detroit is still one of only 12 PCSAs with 5 million+ population at the moment). On the other hand, Austin and Las Vegas are Top 36 PCSAs, but not Top 36 media markets (yet). However, it's inevitable both will shoot into the Top 30 in both categories in the decades ahead at the rate that they're growing. If I had to put my money on a long-shot market currently positioned below the red line in either category getting into MLS, Austin and Vegas would be the sleepers. The Southwest and Southeast have more growth potential than the established, but stagnant Northern sports markets when looking 20-30 years down the road (a reason why I hope Phoenix and Carolina eventually make the cut). That's a factor MLS could consider when weighing which expansion candidates to give priority to.
Buffalo's a bit bigger if you count the Canadian bits right across the river, but only by another quarter million or so. And it's not hugely surprising that Hartford hasn't had a team since the Whalers, given its proximity to NYC; it's a small market relatively close to the biggest one, so it gets overshadowed like Riverside-San Bernardino does by LA (although those are the same primary statistical area). And looking at the biggest places which aren't under consideration for an MLS franchise, there are two aspects which seem obvious: slow-growing cities which are may already be stretching to support the pro sports teams in the market (Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Milwaukee) and markets which are somewhat secondary to another large city which is nearby (Hartford, Baltimore, Milwaukee). Vegas and Austin didn't submit bids this round, but both have been discussed seriously within the last couple years.
Yeah Buffalo, El Paso, San Diego are all special cases for the reason you mention. By 28, and especially by 32 teams, there really are no "no brainers" left. And there'll never be another market in Canada that gets an MLS team. Maybe a second team in the greater Toronto metroplex, but the gap between the top 3 MLS markets and the other 3/4 around the million line is pretty stark. Throw in the fact that those smaller markets - Ottawa, Edmonton, and Calgary - not to mention 750k Winnipeg - have 41 game NHL teams sucking up sponsorship and and ticket revenues, Canada is completely tapped out. There's a reason why the NFL keeps kicking the idea of teams in London, Toronto, Mexico City about. I suspect MLB will be in a all up in Havana once Cuba opens back up. Once your top choices are a decent sized market that isn't growing and already has four major league teams like Detroit or smaller markets like Nashville which already has two major league teams or even smaller virgin territory like Greensboro or Milwaukee or Jacksonville, you've really run out of steam.
Raleigh-Durham being at 6 million is a ridiculous possibility, mainly because percentage growth is not a good indicator for future growth. A total count is a better predictor. The total count actual shows a slight decrease in growth between 2010 to 2015 compared to 2000 to 2010. It has dropped from about 750,000 in 2000-2010 period to a pace of 400,000 in 2010-2020 period. Which is still faster than the cities immediately in front of them, but still indicates the 3 decade boom may be slowing down. Overall a better estimate for population size in 2040 would be 3.7 million, which would put them at a similar level as Minneapolis-St. Paul currently is. Neither city is likely to get into the top 15 markets anytime soon. Both would have to pass Minneapolis and Orlando who are both growing at faster pace than either Charlotte or Raleigh. In the 10 to 15 year time frame you point out at current rates I would expect Charlotte to be 18 and Raleigh to be 23. Raleigh is growing significantly faster than the cities immediately in front of it, but the only cities in front of Charlotte that it is growing faster than are stagnant cities that either aren't growing significantly or are shrinking. Raleigh is entering into a size category where movement in relative market size changes much more slowly, and jumping up to 23 in a 15 year period is extremely fast growth.
Why do I get the feeling that MLS is setting up a DivII expansion league? MLS could simply tell prospective cities that if they want to join MLS they have to pay the $150M and play in this league for a year or two. Those 12 teams would be divided into east and west and play a 30-34 game schedule. At the end of it, the top team from each conference will be promoted into MLS for the year.
-------------------------- For a league being smaller than the other established big 4 sports, our spread on the map is not bad and remember we have 3 teams in Canada. At some point in the future, I would love Canada to get their own league and take the 3 MLS teams with them to form the core of their league. (Being 1/2 Canadian, I can dream). If that happens , then we can take on 3 more US market teams, which would then almost allow most of the cities on the interest to get a team.
Why not? MLS wants to increase the league to 28 teams by 2022 (the end of the current TV contract), so give teams that want to join a league of their own to prove themselves. Once they set that league up as the de-facto promotional league, all the teams that are serious about playing in Division I will be enticed to leave NASL and USL and MLS will have control over their futures. MLS uber alles and all that.
Of all the crap that gets posted on BS, this one is the least likely to happen. We have leagues for teams to prove themselves expansion worthy. They are called NASL and USL. With all the crap of both being D2 now, you think MLS will try to sandwich another league in between? Now I'm all for letting any/all teams that have $$ to join MLS. If the league gets past 30 teams then creative measures would be needed for scheduling. Maybe then some sort of split (regionally) or championship division or something.
Boston did lose the Patriots, though. Here is not the place to get into it further, but Boston lost the Patriots and in a pretty big way, victory parades and all that notwithstanding.
Canada being a large country, land mass wise, with a small population spread thinly along mostly the Canada/U.S. border makes it impossible to set up a legitimate and successful Division 1 soccer league. And there's no way in hell Garber and MLS would give up their three Canadian based teams, especially given how the recent East Final between Toronto and Montreal played out.
====== Must be some truth MLS cares about Canada with what they announced at the cup and now the recent news of subsidizing some Canadian 'star' players...
Don't be surprised, however, when someone raises his hand and asks why worthy cities in the US have gone without while MLS maintains three teams in another country. Furthermore, what about the development of the sport in the rest of Canada? Indeed, there is serious talk of a Canadian league. Think about it: Toronto - Montreal was a compelling series, but it was as much an ad for the possibilities in Canada as for MLS. The USSF could force MLS to divest the Canadian teams. That's the point that so many overlook. And someday, when the soccer community is less incestuous and authority is appropriately divided, it probably will. Finally, enough of the big country / small population argument. No one's putting a team in Yellowknife, Boston to Los Angeles and Orlando to Seattle aren't quick commutes, and Canada's major urban areas ARE densely populated. The situation up there and how MLS deals with it is pathetic. It hinders growth in two countries.
What are you on about. The three Canadian teams wanted to be in MLS. MLS is a privately run business, not some sort of public agency for the greater good. Any "for the development of whatever" should be understood to contain the "as long as it fits in with our interests". MLS isn't in it to make soccer better in Canada or the United States - in as much as better soccer in those places makes MLS a better business. The main Canadian sponsorship and broadcast revenues will always be driven by the three major metro areas. If having those three metros in MLS makes it harder for Canada to build it's own league, well that really sucks for Canada. It really sucks for the NASL and USL that MLS has teams in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Philly, Dallas, and Houston.
I get this line up reasoning, and on paper your argument is based on hard numbers so it is persuasive. I would counter that population numbers are not the sole, or even biggest, way to know if an MLS club will succeed. New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago have all had teams for 20 years and I'd argue the culture relevance and impact in those cities is less than what Portland, Seattle, or Toronto have achieved. Getting a larger percentage of a mid level city has value because there is a passion and buzz that leads to revenue and awareness of the league. I won't argue that the ten largest cities should have clubs almost by default, but after that I do think ownership and general interest in the sport and league comes into play more.
I can't see MLS putting a team in North Carolina until the state legislature repeals the bathroom statute and repeals the statute that forbids localities from passing ordinances supporting the LGBT community. Until that happens, North Carolina will remain a pariah state.
I hate the phrase "put a team" anywhere but the NWSL did accept the North Carolina FC people buying and moving the Western New York Flash to Raleigh. I'm not saying that means MLS will accept one of the North Carolina based bids but the women's league did allow the move there.
I can guarantee that will have zero affect on MLS's decision to accept either of the North Carolina teams. Leagues will remove all-star games from a city because of a law that is bad PR, but it won't let something so minor prevent them from taking advantage of such a large market.