The agony of losing a childhood sports team leading to federal legislation

Several lawmakers said their personal experiences contributed to proposing legislation that would make it harder for sports teams to leave a city and go elsewhere:

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

He doesn’t even really root for the Chicago Bears, but U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders says he wants to ensure Bears fans — and sports fans of all stripes — are protected from the heartbreak he suffered as a teenager, when his beloved Brooklyn Dodgers left for Los Angeles.

Sanders, the independent Vermont senator and two-time presidential candidate, threw his support behind long-shot legislation Thursday that would give communities a chance to keep their professional sports teams if their owners threatened to leave. Under the proposal, local leaders would have a year to find another buyer for the sports team or to organize a community ownership structure, like that used by the Green Bay Packers, to take over the team instead…

The penalties under the new proposal would apply if team owners relocate their home facility across state lines or out of metropolitan areas.

“Professional football is America’s religion,” Sanders said, when touting the need to promote activities like professional sports that bring people of different backgrounds together…

The impact of those moves can linger for generations, the lawmakers said. Casar talked about the loss he felt when the Houston Oilers left the city for Nashville in 1996.

Three things stick out to me from this overview:

  1. Childhood commitments to teams stick with people. Jerry Reinsdorf has also discussed how the move of the Dodgers to LA affected him. Plenty of Americans have experienced this, including lots of kids.
  2. The moving across state lines strikes me as not the same thing as moving out of metropolitan regions. I know it involves different bodies of government but the metro area is the more important factor here for fans. If the Bears end up in Indiana and the Chiefs are in Missouri, fans have not lost a team.
  3. Sanders suggests football is religion and he is right in certain ways: it prompts vast followings, fans come together across different backgrounds, stadiums are sacred spaces, the Super Bowl is a sacred event, and so on. Sports is a kind of functional religion.

It sounds like the goal of this legislation is to limit the benefits wealthy team owners can derive from playing places against each other regarding stadiums and teams. If an owner threatens to leave in order to get more taxpayer money or a better deal, this legislation gives communities other options. Whether this saves the children of America from sports heartbreak might be a secondary benefit.

Sports teams that are suburban franchises

Many major American sports teams have names referencing cities or states. Some of these teams are located in the suburbs while they refer to cities in their names. But I recently was thinking about teams that are intentionally suburban. Perhaps they never were located in the city (versus teams that started in cities but moved out later). Perhaps their name refers to a suburb or suburban area. These four teams came to mind:

Photo by Esmihel Muhammed on Pexels.com
  1. Anaheim Ducks. They started in a large suburb in southern California and are still there today. Makes sense given that it is in the sprawling Los Angeles area?
  2. New Jersey Devils. Named after a state but this team has been in the suburbs of New York City (in the named state) for a number of years after an earlier homes in Kansas City and then Denver. Newark is also a large suburb but the state is largely caught between the big cities of New York City and Philadelphia.
  3. New York Islanders. Named after the state but located from the beginning in the Long Island suburbs (with a short time in Brooklyn in the 2010s).
  4. Arizona Cardinals. Since moving to this state, they played in Tempe and Glendale. (The team played in St. Louis and Chicago in their previous stops – they were a city team until they moved to a new region.)

On one hand, a few other teams might seem to fit this bill. Take the New England Patriots who play in the suburbs and whose name refers to a larger region. They were initially founded as the Boston Patriots. There might be others.

Two questions emerge from these quick thoughts:

  1. Was there something about hockey teams founded in the last 50 years that some aimed at suburban audiences moreso than other sports?
  2. Does being a major sports franchise in the suburbs or associated with the suburbs make a substantive difference to the team and its results? Given that more Americans live in suburbs than other settings, do these suburban locations tend to make it easier for residents of the region to attend?

Las Vegas quickly on the (sports) map

It is rare for a city to add professional sports teams at the rate at which Las Vegas is going:

Photo by Masood Aslami on Pexels.com

With the potential for a city to add an NBA franchise in time for 2028, Vegas could go from no Big Four teams to become the 13th city with an MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL team in the span of 11 years.

Several things may have happened in a relatively short amount of time:

  1. The city has grown rapidly in recent decades. The city had 125,787 people in 1970 (too small to have 4 sports franchises), 258,295 in 1990 (still on the smaller side), and 583,756 people in 2010 (a big city).
  2. It is a new market. This presents a chance to have new fans.
  3. Gambling is now okay with every major sport because of the revenue generated. That obstacle is gone.
  4. The city and other governments are willing to provide public money for stadiums. Owners and teams really like this.

At some point, Las Vegas will not grow like it has in the past (it already slowed between 2010 to 2020 to 10%). At some point, a team might want to leave Las Vegas for greener pastures. But for now, Las Vegas is a shiny new sports city. If the NBA does indeed start a franchise there in the next few years, the teams in the four major sports help give the city and region a certain status.

NFL teams leave cities for suburbs in search of more revenue and tax dollars

NFL teams keep their city names and go to the suburbs for more money:

Photo by Chris K on Pexels.com

The Arlington Cowboys. East Rutherford Giants and Jets. Inglewood Rams and Chargers. And maybe the Hammond Bears.

Ten NFL teams don’t play in their namesake cities but in their suburbs. If the Chicago Bears go through with one of their proposals for a new stadium — Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker acknowledged Friday that the team’s next home is unlikely to rise within Chicago’s city limits — they could wind up in northwest suburban Arlington Heights or just across the Indiana border in Hammond.

But like other NFL teams, they have trademarked their name and would retain their city identity — along with their Chicago “C” and Bears head logos…

The move outside cities, analysts say, is driven largely by the desire for more money from new stadium revenues on larger, cheaper tracts of land, often closer to many season ticket holders, where teams can build surrounding entertainment districts with restaurants, hotels, retail and housing.

This is a classic suburban story: land outside the city is cheaper so a buyer can get more bang for their buck. This is the story often told about single-family homes: take the same home and lot and see the price to build it and buy it drop as you move out from the city through closer suburbs to outer suburbs.

With so much activity in the suburbs already, it is not like a new stadium is isolated. There are plenty of fans and businesses nearby. Americans are used to suburb-to-suburb commutes. The land that is cheaper in the suburbs can then appreciate in value and provide a big return for the football team.

And if suburban communities are willing to offer big tax breaks, this can generate even more revenue for the football teams. There can be a local or national bidding war where suburbs provide extra incentives beyond having cheaper land compared to cities.

Is there a strong counterargument for a football team to stay in a big city? Should they be loyal to the city? Can there land be even more valuable in the long run because of the demand for land in cities? At the moment, the primary thing cities might offer are big tax breaks.

People might get extra interested in these cases as football teams operate in the public eye and can bring together people across a region. But aren’t the teams just acting like all the other businesses that move locations, including going to the suburbs, so they can make more money?

I like a city’s map as part of the basketball floor

NBA teams in recent years have come up with some unique basketball floor designs. Here is what I saw last night when watching the Chicago Bulls play the Milwaukee Bucks in Milwaukee:

The area inside the three-point line and outside the lane is a map of Milwaukee streets. I do not know the city well enough to immediately know what part of Milwaukee displayed. But, I might be be able to figure it out with a little time. A Midwest grid is visible with some slight variations.

What if every NBA team put a map on their floor? Some of the might be more recognizable than others. Perhaps the maps could be bigger; imagine the map being outside the three-point lines and spanning most of the court. Or the map could emphasize a particular neighborhood or city feature.

I generally like seeing maps. I want to figure out what they are showing and consider what we can learn it. This map might be more of a decorative element than anything else but I am in favor to adding more maps to sports settings.

Who is affected by unusual sports champions like Indiana in college football or Leicester City in the Premier League?

Sports leagues often have a set of consistent winners who regularly contend for championships. They may have a history and resources. They are known by all in the sport. They may be disliked by plenty of others whose teams do not have regular success or do not challenge for championships.

Photo by Wallace Chuck on Pexels.com

Sometimes these hierarchies are upset. Last night was one such occurrence with Indiana University beating Miami to cap the college football playoff. Indiana is the football champion for the first time ever. A basketball school won the football championship. As one commentator summed up how it happened, they concluded that it may never happen again:

All of which makes this a singular moment in the sport. The Indiana football program still has the third most losses of any team in FBS history, and I’m not sensing that Northwestern or Wake Forest is all that close to hanging a championship banner. Maybe, though. College football was a static sport for a long time. The last year a team won its program’s first national title was 1996, when the Florida Gators did it. A new economic structure will create new first-time champs on a quicker timeline than that going forward. It will just never, ever yield a two-year flip job like the one Indiana just put on.

In the recent past, I also remember Leicester City winning the Premier League in 2016. This team had finished second in the top tier once in the distant past (late 1920s) and had fluctuated between the top tier and second tier for decades. But 2015-2016 was a magical season where the team overcame great odds to win the league. Ten years later, they are back in the second tier.

Who is affected by these unusual championship victories? Certainly it is good for supporters of these teams. They will remember this forever. Their team won it all when they typically are not even competing for the top spot. The teams will enjoy this success for years, perhaps with new fans and resources, and with a higher status legacy.

What about the broader public? Perhaps some others will join in for the exciting ride of the unusual championship. How many college football fans joined the Indiana bandwagon from their success the previous year through their just-completed undefeated year? How many fans enjoyed Leicester City beating the top teams that tend to dominate the Premier League?

At the same time, this success does not last forever. Do sports championships change people’s day to day lives? Will the regular powers in the sport reassert their dominance?

Maybe the most enduring legacy will be the hope that any team may have that they too could have these unusual seasons. Get the right coach. Attract the right star player. The top teams might falter. It could all come together for one season. It probably won’t – there can only be one champion each year – but it could. Remember when Indiana or Leicester City or other unexpected champions won it all? The great outlier season could happen. The odds that another unexpected champion could arise have to be greater than 0%, right?

(The 2016 World Series victory by the Chicago Cubs might be a similar unexpected championship – see one comparison to Indiana’s win here. The Cubs’ win led to a large public celebration. For multiple reasons, I did not include them in this post.)

Local history and Illinois high school mascots

With two bills proposed in the Illinois legislature regarding the names of high school mascots, one writer looks at the connections between local history and mascots:

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Pexels.com

Nearly every high school nickname in Illinois, and across the country, is a product of a local history. Your nickname, blandly innocuous or a 300-year-old derogatory insult toward indigenous people, is not special. More than 30 schools in Illinois currently claim Native American-related nicknames. There are also 36 schools that are Eagles, 29 that are Bulldogs and 29 that are Tigers…

Heritage and lore are often behind nicknames: Outside Champaign, the Bunnies of Fisher Jr./Sr. High School took their name from a century-old tradition, when players carried rabbit-feet. The DeKalb Barbs nod to DeKalb as the origin of barbed wire. In Brighton, Southwestern High School — honoring the area’s Native background without making a whole group of people a caricature — are Piasa Birds, a reference to the mythical creatures found painted into cliffs on the nearby Mississippi River.

Some of the best Illinois nicknames play off a town’s industry: The Rochelle Hubs honor Rochelle’s history as a travel junction, where rail lines and several interstates converge. The Cornjerkers of Hoopeston — home of the National Sweetcorn Festival — is another example of a team turning an insult (here, against corn farmers) into a point of pride. There’s a similarly defiant streak about Farmington Farmers and Coal City Coalers.

Discussions of changing the mascot often invoke this history:

“My first death threat I ever got as a legislator was after I filed that first mascot bill,” West said. “You hear, ‘If I see you crossing the street, I promise to forget how to use my brakes.’ My goodness — over a mascot! You are coming for their traditions, they say. Tradition is always the main argument. Finances too — how much it will cost to get new uniforms and so on. But the energy, and anger, in these conversations is about history.”

Local history is important to many communities. But there are also plenty of moments in history where communities make decisions to go different directions. As they consider external pressures and internal pressures, communities come together and discuss how they would like to respond. My research considered decisions about development but this could also apply to mascots. Have the times changed? How do newer residents in a community feel? What is the broader purpose of schools? The discussion may be about the name of the high school names bu tit likely invokes broader questions about how communities think about themselves and the world around them.

Of the examples of high school mascots provided in the article, the names highlighting a local industry are intriguing. What might this look like in the twenty-first century? The Office Parks? The Hospitalists? The Data Centers or Warehousers? The Drivers? New traditions could begin with names fitting more recent work and industry patterns.

Teams from the biggest metropolitan areas doing well in MLB’s first half

The first half of the Major League Baseball season is almost over. And big market teams are leading the way:

Photo by Tim Gouw on Pexels.com

Of the top 10 teams in playoff position, seven teams come from the top seven North American markets by population figures, according to the Census Bureau and Canada population sources. They are, 1) the New York Yankees and New York Mets, 2) Los Angeles Dodgers, 3) Chicago Cubs, 5) Houston Astros, 6) Toronto Blue Jays and 7) Philadelphia Phillies.

The three other teams in the top 10? Detroit, Tampa, and Milwaukee. According to one source, they rank as the #17, #24, and #outside of the top 50 most populous metropolitan regions.

A few other thoughts about this list:

  1. Mexico City is the largest North American market. Of course, MLB only has teams in the US and Canada (one team).
  2. Missing teams from the other largest markets: Dallas-Fort Worth, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Miami.
  3. Metropolitan population may not compare exactly with market size. This listing of MLB market sizes has a slightly different order.
  4. All seven teams in the big markets play in stadiums in their city (not in the suburbs).
  5. The argument in baseball tends to go that the teams in the largest markets have the most money to spend. This could be connected to local media deals (the LA Dodgers with the biggest) or perhaps owners from certain places having funds or lots of fans attending games in certain places.
  6. But having money does not necessarily guarantee being in a bigger market or winning a World Series. One analysis:

Since 1995, 48% of the champions and 38% of the contestants in the World Series have had top 5 payrolls. 93% of the champions and 83% of the contestants have been in the top half of payroll. Only two low-payroll teams have won it all — the 2002 Anaheim Angels and the 2003 Florida Marlins. It has been two decades since that has happened.

The list of losing World Series teams in the bottom half of payroll for the season includes the 2007 Rockies, 2008 and 2020 Rays, 2010 Rangers, 2014 Royals, 2015 Mets, 2016 Indians, and 2023 Diamondbacks.

New golf courses as signs of wealth

If you are wealthy, building a new golf course may just be the way to put that money on display:

Photo by Thomas Ward on Pexels.com

Lately, though, there’s a rash of billionaires breaking ground on new golf clubs for reasons that seem to defy economic logic and environmental sanity. It seems they are so rich that they are willing to spend whatever it takes to build their dream playgrounds, and it’s less important, in many cases, whether the new enterprise makes money or not.

“Many are ‘financed’ by wealthy people who want to do something great, and know how to work the system to get tax breaks etc. from localities eager to have a great project providing jobs and tourism [dollars] in their backyard,” Tom Doak, the great golf-course architect, wrote on Golf Club Atlas, a popular blog, last year…

Last year, more than 25 new golf courses were opened around the country, the most in the past decade. Many of these were add-ons to existing resorts or in remote private locations, such as Mauk. Land and building costs have become too pricey to justify the construction of new golf courses and clubs in Metropolitan areas, according to the National Golf Foundation, but in remote locations like Mauk, there’s plenty of room and the costs are often low…

Ground zero of golf madness is almost certainly Florida, which has more courses than any other state in the country by far, with nearly 1,200. Between the warm, humid weather; the flat, sandy terrain; and the abundance of wealthy retirees with plenty of time and money on their hands, the state is incredibly attractive to developers. It doesn’t hurt that the rich are flocking there in droves, thanks in part to the fact that there’s no state income tax…

“It’s all about controlling the number of people who have access to maintain the quality of the experience,” Nathan explains. “That’s the funny thing about golf. Every golfer’s dream is to be on this amazing piece of land, on this perfectly manicured golf course. And to be out there alone with their group.”

I am interested to know the scale of tax breaks available for such courses. If local governments are willing to offer tax breaks, does this mean they find a golf course and associated development to be an improvement over the current state of the land? If so, how much money do they expect that course to generate (vs. how much it could generate without the same tax break or with the ongoing non-golf course use of the property)? It sounds like this is a tool for more rural areas to quickly jump start development but it is harder to know the longer-term consequences.

It would also be interesting to know what happens to golf courses and clubs long-term after they get past their opening and first generation of members. It is one thing to plan the course and see it come to fruition. Do kids and grandkids then continue that legacy or do they sell their portion? Do these courses become their own institutions that go on for generations beyond or even in different directions compared to the original vision cast?

Filling empty big box stores with pickleball

I have tried to track the problems created by vacant big box stores in the suburbs, including having empty former grocery stores and putting COVID vaccine centers in those spaces. Some communities now find pickleball can make use of big box spaces and possibly generate revenue:

Photo by Frank Schrader on Pexels.com

When big-box stores like Toys R Us or Buy Buy Baby close, they leave behind tens of thousands of empty square feet — spaces that can be difficult to fill.

Finding new tenants for these massive spaces is no small task. But one unlikely contender, pickleball — among the nation’s fastest-growing sports — is breathing new life into these cavernous retail spaces.

From Vernon Hills to Batavia, commercial indoor courts are opening at a steady clip, bringing renewed energy, foot traffic, and consumer spending to shopping centers facing an uncertain future…

Retail market experts believe repurposing vacant big-box stores as indoor pickleball facilities is a smart business move. These spaces offer high ceilings, ample parking, and central locations. For pickleball chains seeking an affordable 40,000- to 50,000-square-foot space, these vacant stores provide an ideal solution…

One key concern is tax revenue. Unless the facility also sells equipment, apparel, or food and beverages, the host municipality won’t see much financial benefit from sales tax, leaving a gap that traditional retail stores typically fill.

Vacancies are bad for multiple reasons. They sit empty, suggesting there is no demand for space in the community. They may attract undesirable activities. They are not generating revenue. The buildings and parking lots may not be kept up to the same level of open stores.

Filling vacancies, therefore, is important. Anything using the space broadcasts activity and suggests a more vibrant community.

But also important is the need for revenue. Spaces in suburbs designated for commercial use are intended to help provide tax dollars to be spent on local priorities. If these spaces are not generating revenue, might they be better used for housing or community spaces or recreation use?

From the article, it is less clear about whether pickleball facilities can provide the tax revenues suburbs might hope for. Is there a point where suburbs might be unhappy with pickleball there, even if they do address the vacancy issues?