|
MY NIGGA D-LINK posted:Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Pittsburgh is bigger than Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Nashville, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Buffalo, and Green Bay. Its only a few hundred thousand people smaller than Denver, Baltimore, St Louis, and Tampa.
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
Sash! posted:Pittsburgh is bigger than Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Nashville, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Buffalo, and Green Bay. Its only a few hundred thousand people smaller than Denver, Baltimore, St Louis, and Tampa. I would never have thought that since its population has halved since the 80s
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:Chicago has the population, but they really, really like the one they already have They could easily support the Packers as well, but they obviously aren't going anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:Chicago has the population, but they really, really like the one they already have They really really really like the Cubs but the Whitesox do fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
MY NIGGA D-LINK posted:I would never have thought that since its population has halved since the 80s Unlike a lot of the rust belt, Pittsburgh has successfully reinvented itself as a hub of banking and finance, bio-tech, and other health care industries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 05:16
|
|
Suspect Bucket posted:Ooh, have two in London, one in Paris, and one in the great football loving nation of Spain. si se puede vamos los madrid futbol norteamericano matadores
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Sash! posted:Pittsburgh is bigger than Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Nashville, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Buffalo, and Green Bay. Its only a few hundred thousand people smaller than Denver, Baltimore, St Louis, and Tampa. By MSA it's 22nd, and while it's only a few hundred thousand smaller than those cities you named, it's got an even smaller margin between it and Cincinnati, Cleveland, and KC, as well as Orlando, SA, Portland, and Sacramento. Really once you get past Seattle (#15) they're all within a few hundred thousand of each other, and mostly in the 2.x mil range.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
KettleWL posted:By MSA it's 22nd, and while it's only a few hundred thousand smaller than those cities you named, it's got an even smaller margin between it and Cincinnati, Cleveland, and KC, as well as Orlando, SA, Portland, and Sacramento. Really once you get past Seattle (#15) they're all within a few hundred thousand of each other, and mostly in the 2.x mil range. And most importantly the Steelers are doing well financially and the fans support them. So it really doesn't matter how the city itself does as long as the NFL keeps cranking out cash from there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
wheez the roux posted:vamos los madrid futbol norteamericano matadores 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
swickles posted:Unlike a lot of the rust belt, Pittsburgh has successfully reinvented itself as a hub of banking and finance, bio-tech, and other health care industries. And panhandling. I get asked for money more often in any weekend in Pittsburgh than I do in DC in a month.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
MrLogan posted:And panhandling. I get asked for money more often in any weekend in Pittsburgh than I do in DC in a month. I was never asked for money once from 1986 to 2003 or 2007 to 2010. I'm up to four today alone in DC. Are you dressed like the monopoly guy because you might be asking for it
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Listen nobody but nobody panhandles like the bums in San Francisco. My home town homies have aggressive panhandling down to an art form (and an industry).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
MrLogan posted:And panhandling. I get asked for money more often in any weekend in Pittsburgh than I do in DC in a month. Sash! posted:I was never asked for money once from 1986 to 2003 or 2007 to 2010. For real, having lived in both cities I have never seen a panhandler in Pittsburgh but have seen a ton in DC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
swickles posted:For real, having lived in both cities I have never seen a panhandler in Pittsburgh but have seen a ton in DC. Your homeless probably all die in the Winter. Edit Vvvv Bushman owned. 
Chichevache fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Pan handling has refined to the point where some panhandlers got famous. RIP bushman. E: this is San Francisco that is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
ruh roh raggyquote:(08-06) 11:14 PDT Oakland -- The A's have begun talks with an architect to build a baseball-only stadium at the Oakland Coliseum site, A's owner Lew Wolff said Wednesday. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/A-s-approach-architect-about-building-a-new-5672384.php
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:ruh roh raggy Good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:ruh roh raggy Enjoy playing in Levi's, where all the colors are red and gold, and there's a gigantic SF logo on the front pavilion (even though it's in Santa Clara). Oh and giant banners of 49ers players everywhere. And a museum of 49ers memorabilia. But it's totally a bay area sports venue, not a 49ers stadium.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:ruh roh raggy  I stand by my previous assertion: move them to Las Vegas and open the blood gates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Sacramento Raiders would actually make a lot of sense. Oakland fans can still get to games (it'll suck but it's straight up I-80), there's a big untapped market there, Sacramento has lots of room so I bet there's someplace you could plonk down a stadium, and it'd be thematically appropriate that our state's capital wears a pirate brand. e. for example looking at google maps, there's lots of unused open flat space next to Raley Field, which is on the river, right next to freeways, etc. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Billionaire Red McCombs told the San Antonio Express-News on Wednesday that he and his family would be interested in buying a piece of the Oakland Raiders "if that's what it would take to get them" to San Antonio.quote:McCombs, however, said he's not sure whether Raiders owner Mark Davis would seek out local investors if he was to relocate the team. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...//bit.ly/zzSpRY
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Concord? I live in Concord. There is no way we're building a billion dollar football stadium in loving Concord. Dublin I could sort of believe. e. oh they mean at the naval weapons station. Naw, I mean there's a ton of unused space out there, but A) it's basically a superfund site and B) the transportation out to there sucks rear end. e 2. LOL. Mark Davis thinks Santa Clara isn't part of the Bay Area - and neither is Dublin, which he liked more than Concord. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Sacramento Raiders would actually make a lot of sense. Oakland fans can still get to games (it'll suck but it's straight up I-80), there's a big untapped market there, Sacramento has lots of room so I bet there's someplace you could plonk down a stadium, and it'd be thematically appropriate that our state's capital wears a pirate brand. That would own but the traffic would be terrible. I always took 680 from San Jose to Sac and there are long stretches of winding two lane highway that would probably become a parking lot. The twists and turns of the highway are pretty gentle, but for some reason California drivers always come to a stop for a mild curve on the highway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:California drivers always come to a stop for a mild curve on the highway. This doesnt only happen in California. NC drivers are Real Bad (I wont say The Worst because I dont want to start a "my state's drivers are the worst" chat).
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:That would own but the traffic would be terrible. I always took 680 from San Jose to Sac and there are long stretches of winding two lane highway that would probably become a parking lot. The twists and turns of the highway are pretty gentle, but for some reason California drivers always come to a stop for a mild curve on the highway. 680 doesn't go to sacramento, it goes through concord and up to I-80. People in Oakland would just take I-80. The 680 corridor between Concord and I-80 is two lanes, as you said, so it's horrible for carrying a lot of traffic, which would make it harder for me personally to go up there. e. Oh you said from San Jose. Yeah that drive even on a saturday, sheesh. Going up the Sunol Grade everyone drops from 75 down to 50 even in the left lane. Lots of twisty areas of 3 lanes with slow fuckers hogging the left lane who then speed up to 85 on the straight downhill and get all pissed because you drove around them when they were doing 55 and now you're trying to stick to 75 and you're IN THEIR WAY HOW DARE YOU PASS, uggggh. I'd take 680 over 880 though. 880 on a weekday commute is a war zone. Or did you mean, putting the team in Concord? The Naval Weapons Station is closer to highway 4. It is right off North Concord BART, so supposedly there could be a BART linkup, but people want to tailgate and that means horrific traffic from Oakland - over 24 (there's a new bore in the caldecott tunnel, so that part isn't as terrible as it used to be), a little piece of 680 which is fine at that point (like 5 lanes each way), and then little bits of 242 (fine) and 4 (two-lane tiny highway). A lot of interchanges, a lot of merging, the traffic will suck and back up even on Sunday games, and on a Monday night or Thursday night game it would be a goddamn nightmare. Not that driving to sactown from the bay area would be any better, mind you. I-80 has way more capacity, but that capacity is generally pretty full, and it's a lot further to travel. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Tailgating in an old naval weapons station sounds pretty badass.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:680 doesn't go to sacramento, it goes through concord and up to I-80. People in Oakland would just take I-80. The 680 corridor between Concord and I-80 is two lanes, as you said, so it's horrible for carrying a lot of traffic, which would make it harder for me personally to go up there. poo poo, you're right. I moved away over a year ago and I'm already forgetting how to travel there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Tailgating in an old naval weapons station sounds pretty badass. You'd think, but it's just acres of mounds where they buried all the little weapons huts that they used for storing ammunition and explosives. I think the actual build site would just be a corner of the area where there's some parking and a building or two. I'm not sure how much is left there that would be cool to look at though. The Navy had to strip the place down in order to do a very long elaborate cleanup of all the horrible toxic poo poo they leached into the ground for the last century.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Sacramento Raiders would actually make a lot of sense. Oakland fans can still get to games (it'll suck but it's straight up I-80), there's a big untapped market there, Sacramento has lots of room so I bet there's someplace you could plonk down a stadium, and it'd be thematically appropriate that our state's capital wears a pirate brand. I don't know if Sacramento could really support a NFL team. When I was still there the Kings had positively abysmal attendance to games, and no one cared at all. There are quite a few "Raiders" fans there, but talking with them I always got the sense they were more interested in Raiders merchandise as a fashion statement than actually caring about the team. It might be an idea if they can pull it off though, and would be better for Oakland Raiders fans than the team moving to LA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Yeah I mean I haven't seen a single place where anyone has suggested a move to Sacramento, so it's not likely. I just think it could possibly work. The Kings don't have a big following in Sacramento, that's true, but the Raiders come with a built-in audience in the bay area and it'd be a shame to lose them (I'm talking broadcast rights, not just physical game attendees). Adding the entire sacramento metro area for broadcast rights would help to reduce the sting of losing the stadium in the bay area. The Kings I think have a tough time competing for eyeballs with the Warriors, but apparently they were just sold last year for a record amount of money and apparently they're going to build a new stadium? Imagine a combo park similar to Oakland, with an indoor basketball arena and outdoor football stadium. That would be cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
One of the two functional stretches of Amtrak in the country runs from San Jose to Sacramento, for what it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:One of the two functional stretches of Amtrak in the country runs from San Jose to Sacramento, for what it's worth. I've ridden that stretch a bunch, it is awesome. The drinks are cheap as hell so you could even pregame on the ride over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah I mean I haven't seen a single place where anyone has suggested a move to Sacramento, so it's not likely. I just think it could possibly work. To be fair the main reason people didn't follow the Kings was because they sucked pretty hard (at least when I was living there ~4 years ago). If you had a winning team like the... *cough*Raiders*cough*. Things might be different.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Also, like the Raiders, the Kings were badly in need of a new facility. It's hard to convince people to pay money to go hang out at a shithole on sunday afternoon. Sucking up the place is of course bad for ticket sales too, but the raiders have a very hardcore fanbase that persisted even during the LA years. I think the Kings have a similar fanbase. It might make sense to build a smaller stadium, since more people these days watch games in their home theaters or in bars and stuff rather than going to the game. Go for a modest size, like maybe 50k to 60k seats, and you'll be more likely to sell out (and thus avoid blackouts).
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
will_colorado posted:Here's a list of the most populous metro areas of the US: http://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/US/largest-cities-list.php Very much so. For one, it's a much shorter and less aggravating drive from Austin to San Antonio. There's plenty of football fans here and we could easily support a team. Especially if they go against Dallas. I dunno. There's just something about Dallas. It's just a hair too far to go for a game without making a weekend of it if you hate sitting in a car for hours. Houston and San Antonio are just right. For me anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Oakland Coliseum's homefield advantage includes the rally possum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Rabid Snake posted:Oakland Coliseum's homefield advantage includes the rally possum. Oakland Coliseum has a real problem with vermin. They've also get a lot of animals showing up on the field too. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Rabid Snake posted:Oakland Coliseum's homefield advantage includes the rally possum. What a dumb rip-off of the Rally Monkey
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Rabid Snake posted:Oakland Coliseum's homefield advantage includes the rally possum. Sign Rally Possum as a dual sports star, start him and Kickoff Pidgeon at WR. Raiders go 12-2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Also, like the Raiders, the Kings were badly in need of a new facility. It's hard to convince people to pay money to go hang out at a shithole on sunday afternoon. Didn't stop Niners fans all those years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 08:02
|
|
