What will be the next Southern city to get their second team in a sport..

You could say the DC area already has two if you count the entire CSA. Because the CSA has two baseball teams, and two football teams.

Same with San Francisco Bay Area. They have two football teams and two baseball teams.

I don't think you'll see two teams in the other CSA's but out of all of them. I think Dallas has the best chance. CSA metro with over 6.2 million and not showing any signs of stopping fast and they are already a large market. The area will NEVER see another football team . But the NBA could come to Ft Worth(highly doubt it) and MLB could come to Downtown Dallas.

I don't see Atlanta or Miami as of yet. Maybe Miami if they could support an NBA team in Palm Beach but I highly doubt that.

If there was a none option, i would choose that. But i'll pick Dallas.

panamaboy9016 said:

We have Los Angeles with the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the Los Angeles Dodgers....We have New York cith the New york Giants/Jets...Mets/Yankees and the Knicks/Nets(Even though they are New Jersey they are in the New York metropolitan Area)...And Chicago with the White Sox/Cubs...Which southern city or maybe US city will have their second team in a sport...

Here are the nominees
Atlanta
HOuston
Dallas
Miami
Philadelphia
Boston
Seattle
San Francisco
Pittsburgh
Washington DC

Sorry I meant American City but because I had just made a post on the Southern city dominance thread I wrote Southern...

Click to expand...

no city on this list could support two teams. the only thing that may happen is if maybe fort worth gets a team (similar to oakland, aneheim). Also maybe another team within the state (san antonio?) Either way this will not happen, why doesn't indy have a team for god sakes?

the only city i could see would be dallas, and thats if they put a baseball team in downtown, they are the only city with the population, money, and the support of other teams, but i dont see that happening. atlanta, houston, and miami dont support their teams that well. especially atlanta. if you count baltimore with d.c. then i could see that happening.

I don't see any other metro area on that list getting another franchise. Cities like San Antonio or Portland might see their second franchise before any of the others listed do, however Houston might finally join DFW, Atlanta and Miami in the NHL and receive a hockey team besides their semi-pro Aeros.

But I'd have to agree with some others on here and say the DFW area if I had to pick one. They've got the largest CSA population in the entire south (excluding DC/Baltimore), and one of the largest in the entire US and they're growing by roughly 1-1.2 million a decade with no signs of slowing down.

There's already a double A farm team for the Texas Rangers in suburban Frisco which is sold out all the time so I honestly think that side of the metroplex could support another baseball team but I doubt it'll happen.

I would say no other city will, especially in Baseball or Football unless it is very clear two teams will draw double revenues for the city and the TV market is there. You also have to consider all the up and coming cities starved for professional sports. Cities like Birmingham, Louisville, and Memphis will likely see professional football or baseball before any of those other cities see a second team.

Memphis already has NBA but were teased with NFL when the Houston Oilers went to Tennessee, set up shop in Memphis for awhile, then went on to Nashville once the stadium was built. Memphis was also teased by pseudo-football such as the USFL and the Memphis Showboats only to see that collapse. Memphis has been stung too many times for the NFL to continue to ignore them (as long as Memphis can make money for them). Moving the NFL to Nashville ahead of Memphis was far and away the best economic move but did leave some hurt feelings.

Cities like Charlotte, Nashville, and Jacksonville have very successful, very profitable NFL programs so the door is open wide for more such larger mid-sized cities to obtain franchises.

This is all just my opinion but in the end, money will win when it comes to who gets what.

There's no way any of the cities listed could support more than 1 team in the same sport/ Hell, Miami can't even support their current baseball team. None of these metros are large enough. Of cities w/ 2 teams in a single sport, the smallest is Chicago. Taking the metro population at just under 10 million, theoretically that is 5 million people per baseball team. Some of the metros on there don't even have that many people in total, so how could they support multiple teams in 1 sport?

the longest lasting two team city in the NFL before the NFL-AFL merger was Chicago: Bears and Cardinals. It's a no brainer that the Bears were traditonally better suppoted than the Cards, but the Cards DID get support...and it wasn't the lack of support that drove them out of town in (I believe) 1960. CBS had the contract for broadcasting NFL games and with t.v. braodcasting becoming increasingly important to the league, it was necessary to shift the Cards to StL since CBS could not broadcast both Bear and Card games in the Windy City.

If the Cards had stayed in town, they would have been well supported. And there is no question that Chicago's population and support of pro football could easily accomodate an AFC team to go with the NFC Bears...and both would thrieve financially.

As the only city that has had an AL and NL franchise in MLB thorughout those leagues' histories, Chicago could do the same thing in football as it does in baseball.