Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould sports league expansion continue?
Results so far:
| Yes | 53% | 41 votes | Total: 77 votes | |
| No | 47% | 36 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesSports league expansion should definitely continue, especially for Major League Baseball (MLB), National Hockey League (NHL) and National Basketball Association (NBA).
I presume that the "sports league" mentioned here is "major league" sports like MLB, NHL, NBA and NFL (National Football League). Well, all teams of the leagues mentioned above are mostly located in the largest and most heavily populated cities or metropolitan areas. However, there are still cities and metropolitan areas in North America that still opens up equal, if not better, opportunities than some of the current franchises in the leagues.
For example, Portland, OR has a larger television market and a larger audience size than Milwaukee, WI, yet it does not have a MLB team. Milwaukee Brewers are doing well in MLB, with a relatively new stadium that always seats more than 30,000 people. Birmingham, AL has a metropolitan population of more than one million people and it does not have a major league team. In contrast, New Orleans, LA and Buffalo, NY, with roughly the same metropolitan population as Birmingham, have 2 major league teams! With even some large cities with relatively large populations of more than one million like New Orleans, it is strange and puzzling to see that they still do not have a major league sports team. You need not even need to mention the demand and eagerness of more regions that have a smaller metropolitan population!
Besides, even in cities where there are at least one professional sports team, like Portland or San Antonio, they are still larger than a lot of cities where there are two, or even three major league sports teams, like Milwaukee (with their 'beloved' Packers located in the same state)!
It has been argued that there is little, if any, room for expansion of major league sports in United States. However, I do not agree with this statement.
Major league sports teams' owners keep building and maintaining state-of-the-art sports grounds and arenas, leaving few (if any) cities presently with arenas so old and audiences so small that they must move to elsewhere. With most of the new arenas' money funded by municipal governments, why should they quit maintaining the arena or stadium they funded when they had not fully recovered their investments (after interest)? No government would like to be saddled with a huge debt even after the sports ground's implosion, like Seattle's Kingdome, where Seattle still pays the Kingdome's bills even after implosion! So even if the team concerned is unsuccessful, the governments will make sure the home major league team still pays up its lease, hence tying them up with stadium leases that make sure they fully pay up their debt before they leave the stadium for elsewhere. Hence an overwhelming majority of major league sports teams will still remain where they are.
In addition, new arenas are always built in United States, in some of the large metropolitan areas without teams in certain major leagues that welcomes new major league sports teams. At least for now, Ford Center in Oklahoma City, OK, Sprint Center in Kansas City, MO, Alamodome in San Antonio, TX are now being built to await for the arrival of new NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB sports teams. There are ample, large sports markets available in sight for expansion if the 4 leagues ever consider expansion! Canadian cities like Quebec City and Winnipeg are also buoyed by the latest oil price spike to regain the ability to build new hockey arenas. It has been said that a few Canadian cities are willing to spend to the last cent to fervently support a new NHL team and arena to come.
Besides, there are 30 teams in MLB, NHL and NBA for now. NFL had done a great alignment with small divisions containing intense rivalries, with 32 teams, perfect for a symmetrical arrangement in our current sports leagues. Teams will be able to play the team from the other league or conference, at least, for a specific interval (like a guaranteed home game every X years, as in NFL). This is what, I think, MLB cannot do now with their asymmetrical league structure and NHL with its current rulings that discourage/reduce interleague games. Maybe with another round of expansion with its realignment, a new determined set of formula will be set to ensure regular and equal exposure of challenges from throughout the league.
Sports expansion should continue in light of the three reasons mentioned above.
Learn more about this author, Timothy Huang.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Take a trip back to the 1990s with me if you will. In all four major professional sports, we saw expansion everywhere. The NHL was the worst by far, adding seven teams, mostly in places where they didn't belong. MLB did a decent job, with the exception of Tampa Bay and Miami (the Florida Marlins), no one really winced at the NFL and the NBA realized that one market of two to which they expanded wasn't a great fit.
Look at the four leagues now. Each league has 30 teams or more. For some, it's been OK. For others, it was utter disaster. Take a look at MLB. Four expansion teams - Florida, Colorado, Tampa Bay and Arizona. Two of those teams have won World Championships (the Marlins did it twice), and the other two haven't seen much - if any playoff time.
Despite two world championships - MLB considered getting rid of the Marlins (and the Twins, despite their two World Series titles as well). MLB seemed to rethink its decision to expand to South Florida. The future of the Marlins is still in the air.
How about the NHL? Recent discussions now revolve around the NHL expanding to Kansas City (if an existing team doesn't move there first) and Las Vegas. As far as the NHL is concerned - the NHL can barely keep its head above water with 30 teams; hence the money-losing lockout of 2004-05 that cancelled a season.
To the NHL's credit, two of its "recent" expansion teams have won the Stanley Cup, the Ducks and the Lightning. And, keeping with this "southern exposure" thing that has been the hallmark of Commish Bettman's reign, the Carolina Hurricanes - relocated from Hartford, won the Lord Stanley in-between.
But before the NHL considers two more teams - keep your head above water for at least five consecutive seasons first?
Ditto for the NBA. The NBA has had its financial troubles as well. The NBA can't handle another team. Thirty is enough.
The NFL is the one league that can not possibly have too many teams. First, the schedule is not as tight as other leagues. There are only 16 games. Right now, theoretically, every team in the AFC could play every team in the NFC every week. Of course, it doesn't work that way. Someone needs to have a bye week. So, if more teams were added, that just makes for more teams having a bye on a particular week.
With the NFL's amazing TV deals and revenue sharing and all the other stuff that makes the business of the NFL great, expansion does not seem to be a problem. Other leagues should look at the way the NFL does business. Small-market teams have so much trouble in the other three majors. But, the NFL can keep teams in markets like Green Bay and Jacksonville.
Can you imagine an NBA team in Green Bay? No. It wouldn't survive. Green Bay folks love their football; they could give a flying leap about basketball. Or, how about Nashville? The NHL said that what really killed the NHL in Nashville was the arrival of...you guessed it, the NFL. When the Houston Oilers moved to Nashville, that signaled the nail in the coffin for the NHL in Nashville.
Which is why the Predators want out of Nashville so badly. They can't live under the umbrella of an NFL team in the same city.
To wrap it up in the simplest terms, expansion should not happen unless the four majors can be absolutely certain they can survive ten years after they get there.
Learn more about this author, Luke Rasmussen.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Sports News & Opinion (Other)
- Should NCAA prohibit college student-athletes from receiving financial gifts?
- Should coaches face criticism when a team loses?
- Do people care as much about sports as they age?
- Should collegiate athletes receive payment for competing in college athletics?
- Is dominance in sports good or bad for competition?
- Are coaches still teaching sportsmanship?
