norcalbuff;842119738 said:

---

It would have been ridiculous for the 20th largest TV market in the country to lack a major pro sports team and have no major college sports.

---

I suppose this is technically true about Sacramento, but the trouble with the city as a "market" is that its proximity to the Bay Area means it is really sharing fans with all of the teams from that (larger) market (lots of Giants, A's, 49ers, Raiders fans out in Sac). In terms of sports fandom Sacramento is already something of an extended Bay Area, making it tougher for a new team to gain a foothold.

That's not to say that I don't think they should keep the Kings. I'm glad that they are going to. I also think Seattle deserves to get an NBA team back, but taking the Kings would have been swapping one injustice for another.

sycasey;842119754 said:

---

I suppose this is technically true about Sacramento, but the trouble with the city as a "market" is that its proximity to the Bay Area means it is really sharing fans with all of the teams from that (larger) market (lots of Giants, A's, 49ers, Raiders fans out in Sac). In terms of sports fandom Sacramento is already something of an extended Bay Area, making it tougher for a new team to gain a foothold.

---

The NBA gets to define markets as they see fit, so if that follows the way the FCC defines TV markets, the kings will have the 20th largest TV market. The question I have is whether the Kings have any other markets in their territory and how the NBA splits the more northern parts of NorCal, Reno/Tahoe and the Central Valley w/ the Warriors. That could move their NBA market size ranking up or down depending on how it compares to other team in cities of similar sizes.

For instance Charlotte a smaller TV market than Sacramento, but if the Bobcats are on cable TV in the entire state of North Carolina, that might triple the number of fans available to watch on TV. Though those fans won't do that much to sell tickets or sell luxury boxes, they will provide a ton of extra cable revenue (if anyone cares that is).

But generally, The Bay Area is a bigger market than the number suggest because it absolutely includes Sacramento for NFL, MLB and NHL. At a quick glance The Bay Area + Sac passes Chicago to become the #3 market, but then it may be close given that you'd have to consider whether Chicago+ the rest of Illinois is bigger than Bay Area+ NorCal.

sycasey;842119754 said:

---

I suppose this is technically true about Sacramento, but the trouble with the city as a "market" is that its proximity to the Bay Area means it is really sharing fans with all of the teams from that (larger) market (lots of Giants, A's, 49ers, Raiders fans out in Sac). In terms of sports fandom Sacramento is already something of an extended Bay Area, making it tougher for a new team to gain a foothold.

That's not to say that I don't think they should keep the Kings. I'm glad that they are going to. I also think Seattle deserves to get an NBA team back, but taking the Kings would have been swapping one injustice for another.

---

Before the Kings arrival in Sacramento, there were a lot of Warriors fans here as well. The large number of A's, 49'ers, Giants, and Raider fans is due to the lack of a local team. The Warriors fans became Kings fans as soon as the team's move to Sacramento became a sure thing.

One thing that many people do not know is that a deal was almost finalized but fell apart at the 11th hour (over egos and a few small financial details that most owners would not care about, but Al Davis did) to move the Raiders to Sacramento. This was in the late 80s when they were still in Los Angeles. It was so close to happening that the foundation for the stadium still exists next to the current Arco (actually now Sleep Train, old habits die hard) Arena. There is no question that Sacramento would have supported the Raiders here and embraced them as they did the Kings.

Sacramento has clearly proven its support for professional sports and its desire for the benefits the new venue will bring in revitalizing the downtown area. I agree wholeheartedly that Seattle deserves an NBA team, but you hit the nail on the head that moving the Kings would be a zero-sum game.

For those of you raggin' on Seattle rainfall at 38.25"/year, it rains more in New Orleans, Memphis, Eugene, Atlanta, NYC, Houston, Boston, Philadelphia, DC, Cleveland, etc. The average rainfall in the US is 37". Sequim (66 miles from Seattle) gets less than 16".

http://average-rainfall-cities.findthedata.org/

OskiMD;842119346 said:

---

Have you ever been to Sacramento?

The only other California cities Sac town can turn its nose down on are Stockton and Modesto. Maybe Fresno. The only less desirable city in the league than Sacremento is probably OK City. Memphis is a wash.

Seattle is definitely a move up for the Kings. Hope they dump Sacramento and make a move to a real city.

---

Downtown OKC is one of the coolest downtowns I've ever been to so I don't get your point

tenplay;842119770 said:

---

For those of you raggin' on Seattle rainfall at 38.25"/year, it rains more in New Orleans, Memphis, Eugene, Atlanta, NYC, Houston, Boston, Philadelphia, DC, Cleveland, etc. The average rainfall in the US is 37". Sequim (66 miles from Seattle) gets less than 16".

http://average-rainfall-cities.findthedata.org/

---

Great, Seattle is better than Houston, Memphis and Cleveland. And guess what, lots of people would choose seattle over those cities.

Now if you go by total hours of sunshine or yearly clear days, Seattle earns it reputation:

http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-sunshine-by-city.php

Of course, there probably should be a filter on how many days are too hot and muggy, but then you have to throw in the seasonal effects during winter of very short days in determining which cities have the most depressing climate.

tenplay;842119770 said:

---

For those of you raggin' on Seattle rainfall at 38.25"/year, it rains more in New Orleans, Memphis, Eugene, Atlanta, NYC, Houston, Boston, Philadelphia, DC, Cleveland, etc. The average rainfall in the US is 37". Sequim (66 miles from Seattle) gets less than 16".

http://average-rainfall-cities.findthedata.org/

---

Yeah, but I think you know that those cities tend to get rainfall in large doses at once, with a higher average of sunny days. What defines Seattle is not a large amount of annual rain, but the frequency of rainy and/or overcast days.

norcalbuff;842119766 said:

---

In Illinois, most people south of Chicago root for St Louis sports teams.

---

somewhat true, sure, and obviously it varies by sport and team performance, but...

NFL fan map



MLB territory map:



Basically I'm not interested in adding up all the smaller markets like Chico and Quad cities. For football and baseball, SF and Chicago are very close when one includes Sacramento.... but they don't appear that close when you look at just TV market size. For economics purposes, I do wonder if areas like Reno pay the same 'in market rates' as the CA cities for the cable channels or how those same rates are determined in split territory like Illinois or Iowa.

tenplay;842118939 said:

---

It's gotta be a downer for the Kings players, who were surely looking forward to moving to the more vibrant and cosmopolitan Seattle. I mean, how many young and rich players would want to live and work in Sacramento of all places? Their location must really work against them re possibilities in the draft and trades. I survived two years living in Sac and couldn't get out of there fast enough.

---

If we're basing our analysis on this, you'd think the Kings would have moved to Anaheim and become the 3rd team in one of the few markets (L.A.) young and rich NBA players really want to move to. I doubt that many of them are that much more excited about moving to Seattle compared to Sacramento.

Not that the above factor matters at all, since teams in places like Oklahoma City and San Antonio are title contenders.

NorCal has too many pro and college teams;I;m for the moving of the Kings, A's and Raiders out of the Bay Area! We have more teams per capita than anywhere in the world. I'm for Cal getting more attention!!!!

barabbas;842120593 said:

---

NorCal has too many pro and college teams;I;m for the moving of the Kings, A's and Raiders out of the Bay Area! We have more teams per capita than anywhere in the world. I'm for Cal getting more attention!!!!

---

Diversity is good, in more ways than one!

barabbas;842120593 said:

---

NorCal has too many pro and college teams;I;m for the moving of the Kings, A's and Raiders out of the Bay Area! We have more teams per capita than anywhere in the world. I'm for Cal getting more attention!!!!

---

A's and Kings won't do much for Cal if they move. Raiders would presumably mean some companies might look into putting corporate dollars into Cal football, but not sure the place is designed to take advantage of corporate dollars with no luxury boxes. Warriors move to SF might mean a little more interest in Cal basketball, especially from in the east bay not wanting to drive to SF.

There are over 7,000,000 people in the Bay Area and another 2,500,000 in Sac metro. That combination exceeds all but, perhaps, 10 states. The capacity of Memorial Stadium is something south of 65,000; Haas less than 12,000. People are fond of pointing out that many SEC schools have no pro competition (those in GA and FL excepted) but most also are in states with half the population of NorCal. That tells me there are plenty of butts to fill seats ifa decent product is put before them. The key to increasing Cal attendance is winning, not eliminating competition.

510Bear;842120461 said:

---

If we're basing our analysis on this, you'd think the Kings would have moved to Anaheim and become the 3rd team in one of the few markets (L.A.) young and rich NBA players really want to move to. I doubt that many of them are that much more excited about moving to Seattle compared to Sacramento.

Not that the above factor matters at all, since teams in places like Oklahoma City and San Antonio are title contenders.

---

Any idea how many Kings players actually live year round in Sacramento?

calumnus;842120726 said:

---

Any idea how many Kings players actually live year round in Sacramento?

---

The last few years, not many if any. This is probably because of the uncertainty about where the Kings will be going forward, and also, frankly, because people in the community aren't in love with the current batch of players.

But in the past, most of the players lived in the Sac area -- especially Granite Bay.

likwid1;842120731 said:

---

.
But in the past, most of the players lived in the Sac area -- especially Granite Bay.

---

I could see that.

Here's another reason the Kings players might prefer not living in Sacramento. Notice who is sitting at #8 on this redneck city list.

http://www.movoto.com/blog/top-ten/10-most-redneck-cities/

tenplay;842122738 said:

---

Here's another reason the Kings players might prefer not living in Sacramento. Notice who is sitting at #8 on this redneck city list.

http://www.movoto.com/blog/top-ten/10-most-redneck-cities/

---

Deeply insightful.

likwid1;842120731 said:

---

The last few years, not many if any. This is probably because of the uncertainty about where the Kings will be going forward, and also, frankly, because people in the community aren't in love with the current batch of players.

But in the past, most of the players lived in the Sac area -- especially Granite Bay.

---

Los Lagos, baby.

Not too many NFL players live in Green Bay. Thomas DeCoud apparently lives in the Berkeley Hills when not playing for the Falcons. A lot of professional players don't "live" where they play, however, roughly half the year is spent in the city of their team, so it probably is somewhat of a factor.

tenplay;842122738 said:

---

Here's another reason the Kings players might prefer not living in Sacramento. Notice who is sitting at #8 on this redneck city list.

http://www.movoto.com/blog/top-ten/10-most-redneck-cities/

---

Sounds like your premise is that, because the Kings have alot of black players, they would prefer living in Seattle over Sacramento, because Sacramento is more "redneck" than Seattle.

You conclude that Sacramento has more rednecks than Seattle, based on a blog post. The blog ranks Sacramento as being the 8th most redneck city.

The same blog ranks Atlanta as being the number one most redneck city.

Interestingly, the mayors of Atlanta and Sacramento, Mohammed Kasim Reed and Kevin Johnson, are both black.

likwid1;842122951 said:

---

Sounds like your premise is that, because the Kings have alot of black players, they would prefer living in Seattle over Sacramento, because Sacramento is more "redneck" than Seattle.

You conclude that Sacramento has more rednecks than Seattle, based on a blog post. The blog ranks Sacramento as being the 8th most redneck city.

The same blog ranks Atlanta as being the number one most redneck city.

Interestingly, the mayors of Atlanta and Sacramento, Mohammed Kasim Reed and Kevin Johnson, are both black.

---

Atlanta is no red neck city; it is in many ways the prototypical black, middle class city which is why many black people are migrating there from northern red neck cities

GB54;842122954 said:

---

Atlanta is no red neck city.

---

I know. There are some redneck areas in the suburbs, but Atlanta is not what I think of when I think of redneck cities.

Black people think of Atlanta the way gay people think of San Francisco.

tenplay;842122738 said:

---

Here's another reason the Kings players might prefer not living in Sacramento. Notice who is sitting at #8 on this redneck city list.

http://www.movoto.com/blog/top-ten/10-most-redneck-cities/

---

This is just plain stupid!

C6Bear;842123066 said:

---

This is just plain stupid!

---

Really. How many younger non-white people would choose to live in Sacramento rather than Seattle? I would guess less than 10%. Have you ever actually lived in Sac? I did for two years. And it is still basically a gas stop on the way to Tahoe.

tenplay;842123136 said:

---

Really. How many younger non-white people would choose to live in Sacramento rather than Seattle? I would guess less than 10%. Have you ever actually lived in Sac? I did for two years. And it is still basically a gas stop on the way to Tahoe.

---

Downtown Sacto is fantastic. Lots of restaurants, bars and cafes with beautiful tree lined streets everywhere. Also, the architecture is cool and you can basically do everything by bicycle. The burbs. Ugh!

tenplay;842123136 said:

---

Really. How many younger non-white people would choose to live in Sacramento rather than Seattle? I would guess less than 10%. Have you ever actually lived in Sac? I did for two years. And it is still basically a gas stop on the way to Tahoe.

---

This is so wrong. You lived in Sac? You must not have gotten out much.

And since you bring up race... from Wikipedia:

In 2010, the racial makeup of Sacramento was 45.0% White, 16.6% African American, 17.8% Asian...

In 2010, the racial makeup of Seattle was as follows:

White: 69.5%
African American: 7.9%
Asian: 13.8%

likwid1;842123187 said:

---

This is so wrong. You lived in Sac? You must not have gotten out much.

And since you bring up race... from Wikipedia:

In 2010, the racial makeup of Sacramento was 45.0% White, 16.6% African American, 17.8% Asian...

In 2010, the racial makeup of Seattle was as follows:

White: 69.5%
African American: 7.9%
Asian: 13.8%

---

Count me in as part of the group that would rather live in Seattle. In Sacramento you get none of the benefits of living in California (weather, food, etc.) and all of the negatives (high taxes, cost of living, etc.).

Though to be fair I probably wouldn't live in Seattle proper either, but maybe Redmond or Bellevue.

tenplay;842123136 said:

---

Really. How many younger non-white people would choose to live in Sacramento rather than Seattle? I would guess less than 10%. Have you ever actually lived in Sac? I did for two years. And it is still basically a gas stop on the way to Tahoe.

---

This really isn't fair. If you need a big city, you would never choose Sacramento, but if you prefer quieter and rural environments mixed in with a decent city life, it's not bad at all.

CalBearRJ;842123404 said:

---

This really isn't fair. If you need a big city, you would never choose Sacramento, but if you prefer quieter and rural environments mixed in with a decent city life, it's not bad at all.

---

+1

Sacramento is a decent little city...

TiredBear;842123409 said:

---

+1

Sacramento is a decent little city...

---

Well with a population of almost 500,000, I wouldn't call it "little". I have several friends there, mostly on the Roseville side. I like some of the eateries near downtown and it is flat and easy to get around. I wouldn't like it cause it gets too hot and as I get older, I prefer more milder climate but nothing wrong with Sacto in general....hardly a redneck town.

^ fair enough, not a little city. Back when I was in school, I once spent a summer there as an intern for an assembly woman. The Capital is beautiful and I like the old feel of downtown.

tenplay;842123136 said:

---

Really. How many younger non-white people would choose to live in Sacramento rather than Seattle? I would guess less than 10%. Have you ever actually lived in Sac? I did for two years. And it is still basically a gas stop on the way to Tahoe.

---

Check my location. Born and raised in Sacramento, thank you, and obviously still live in the area. This is no redneck hick town as suggested, and it's got a lot going for it other than being a "gas stop on the way to Tahoe". Apparently, you didn't get out much in your 2 years here.
Not being younger and non-white, I can't answer that question. What do you get in Seattle? Bad weather, bad overpriced coffee, and a volcano waiting to destroy everything between it and Puget Sound.

Glad you're out of Sacramento since that act alone probably improves the city's image

Currently live in SEA area, it's nice enough but really is a little overrated. To each his own, but you must really like cold weather and rain to live here.

I would imagine the downtown Sac area would be revitalized with that new arena downtown.

It sounds like the Kings players like that the team is staying in Sac.

pingpong2;842123203 said:

---

In Sacramento you get none of the benefits of living in California (weather, food, etc.) and all of the negatives (high taxes, cost of living, etc.).

---

I'm not going to force you to like Sacramento (personally, I love living here and prefer it to even the overpriced Bay Area), but you lose all credibility with that statement.

In Sac you get none of the benefits of living California?
--stones throw from world-renowned travel destinations (SF, Napa, Yosemite, Tahoe). Not to mention plentiful outdoor opportunities right out the front door or Sac itself...Am. River bike trail, foothills.
--mild Mediterranean climate with tons of sunshine all year round
--world-class fresh, locally-grown cuisine cooked authentically by denizens of every creed and color (this is after all, one of the most diverse cities in the nation). Sac is irrefutably one of the best cities in the nation for good food availability.

Yes, cost of living isn't cheap, but it certainly is cheaper on average than Seattle and Bay Area. Sacramento is a great way to live in California and enjoy its benefits without being reamed financially.

I'll get to the point: personally, I'd much rather be in Sacramento than dreary Seattle, and I'm glad the Kings are staying. Sac is very underrated and far more than a gas stop on the way to Tahoe. And there are plenty of young people around. The nightlife is certainly not quiet. Downtown Sac has tons of potential and major props to KJ for really seeing everything through.

I'd challenge all the Sac haters to spend a summer evening in Sacramento. Go to a River Cats game, sit on the grass. Walk alongside the Sac River, and then later head over to midtown for some great nightlife. If wild west/California history is your thing, try out Old Sac and the Railroad Museum. Enjoy just chilling and comfortably walking down the beautiful tree-lined in shorts and tshirt 'til the wee hours of the night. There is nothing in the Bay Area that compares. Just try it.