NorCal Aaron Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 From what I understand, Arlington is about 20 miles from Dallas. San Jose is about 50 miles from San Francisco. Right now I can't think of a team representing one city that plays in another city that would be farther than 50 miles. The proximity to SF is an issue vis a vis name retention, but the crux is that they're moving on the doorstep of a more populous city. Outside of the cynical marketing ploy of the Angels, I can't think of a precedent in major league sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 The proximity to SF is an issue vis a vis name retention, but the crux is that they're moving on the doorstep of a more populous city. Outside of the cynical marketing ploy of the Angels, I can't think of a precedent in major league sports. Is San Jose part of the "San Francisco Bay Area"? If so than the SF 49ers name is appropriate. Is San Jose a larger metro area than SF/Oakland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfbillsfan Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Is San Jose part of the "San Francisco Bay Area"? If so than the SF 49ers name is appropriate. Is San Jose a larger metro area than SF/Oakland? I'd say the SJ metro area is much larger given all the lager cities around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 From what I understand, Arlington is about 20 miles from Dallas. San Jose is about 50 miles from San Francisco. Right now I can't think of a team representing one city that plays in another city that would be farther than 50 miles. Measurements via Google Earth (these are air miles, not driving distance) Candlestick to new Santa Clara stadium = 31.2 miles New Santa Clara Stadium to heart of San Jose = 6 miles For comparison: Fort Worth to Cowboys Stadium = 13.2 miles Dallas to Cowboys Stadium = 18.2 miles Buffalo City Hall to RWS = 9 miles PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I'd say the SJ metro area is much larger given all the lager cities around it. The census has the city of SJ at 1.023 million. It's metro at 1.84 million. SF/Oak is 1.2 million. The Metro 4.2 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I'd say the SJ metro area is much larger given all the lager cities around it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Unit...atistical_Areas Look at #13 and #31. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Absurd argument. Call the team SF when they are essentially are hqed and play 50 miles away in San Jose? Conceptually, I get the whole Bay Area vibe thing, but it would be like the Bills moving to Hamilton and retaining the Buffalo place-name. As preposterous it is for the Jets and Giants to call themselves NY, NYC is 12 miles away and still by far the most populous city in that region. Well the Anaheim Angles were the Los Angeles Angels for a long time despite being about 50 miles from LA and in Anaheim...so its not that unusual, however, given there was already the Los Angeles Dodgers who played close to Los Angeles they decided it was time to destinguish themselves...the 49ers dont have to do that as their isnt another San Francisco named franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorCal Aaron Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Well the Anaheim Angles were the Los Angeles Angels for a long time despite being about 50 miles from LA and in Anaheim...so its not that unusual, however, given there was already the Los Angeles Dodgers who played close to Los Angeles they decided it was time to destinguish themselves...the 49ers dont have to do that as their isnt another San Francisco named franchise. The Angels franchise started in the City of LA before moving to Anaheim and changing their name to the all encompassing 'California' Angels when they moved to Anaheim. They were the LA Angeles for 5 years when they actually played in LA. The latest name switch is a gimmick. None of my friends or relations living in the OC consider it 'LA'; and friends and family who live in the city and county of LA certainly don't cop to some geographical naming reciprocity with the OC. Only folks without an understanding of an area make such assertions. When the Giants were holding out for a new publicly funded stadium prior to Pac Bell, SJ came a courting. The Giants were prepared to replace their 'SF" with 'SJ'. And justifiably so. San Jose is a larger city than SF and merits its distinct team status: we don't call the Sharks the SF Bay Area Sharks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Unit...atistical_Areas Look at #13 and #31. It looks like the census bureau is considering San Jose and Oakland to be part of the San Francisco Bay Area but that San Francisco and Oakland are not considered part of the San Jose "Combined Statistical Area." Arbitrarily, Fremont is included in the Bay Area but is not considered a part of San Jose area in spite of the fact that Fremont borders San Jose but does not border Oakland or San Francisco. In other words, the combination of municipalities seems pretty haphazard. It would be similar to if the area between Buffalo and Rochester were filled with fairly large cities and towns instead of small rural towns. Which towns would be a part of Buffalo's area and which would be part of Rochester's area? Also it would be as if Rochester is considered a part of Buffalo's area but not vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 23, 2010 Author Share Posted June 23, 2010 SD sets aside $500,000 to study downtown redevelopment which could make public money available for stadium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Important question: will the Raiders be playing in the new 49ers stadium? I was kind of hoping they'd be the team to move to LA (and Jacksonville to Toronto). I don't see the Rams or Vikings moving, and Beerball's post above me suggests that the Chargers will be staying in SD. Yes...rooting for team relocation is a terrible thing, but my priority is first and foremost seeing the Bills stay in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorCal Aaron Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Important question: will the Raiders be playing in the new 49ers stadium? I was kind of hoping they'd be the team to move to LA (and Jacksonville to Toronto). I don't see the Rams or Vikings moving, and Beerball's post above me suggests that the Chargers will be staying in SD. Yes...rooting for team relocation is a terrible thing, but my priority is first and foremost seeing the Bills stay in Buffalo. Goodell would like them to share the stadium much like the meadowlands. There have been periodic rumblings in the local press that the Imperial Grand-dad isn't down with that. Don't know why though. Based on the last game I attended at the Stick, the 9ers fanbase has the about the same criminal content as that of the Raiders (minus the Vader fetish wear). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOHNNYFAIRPLAY Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Unit...atistical_Areas Look at #13 and #31. Did you see the declining cities here?: Detrioit Pitt Cleveland Buffalo Roch New Orleans (that one is understandable) Youngstown Flint Basically all of Ohio Every other place is growing really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 It looks like the census bureau is considering San Jose and Oakland to be part of the San Francisco Bay Area but that San Francisco and Oakland are not considered part of the San Jose "Combined Statistical Area." Arbitrarily, Fremont is included in the Bay Area but is not considered a part of San Jose area in spite of the fact that Fremont borders San Jose but does not border Oakland or San Francisco. In other words, the combination of municipalities seems pretty haphazard. It would be similar to if the area between Buffalo and Rochester were filled with fairly large cities and towns instead of small rural towns. Which towns would be a part of Buffalo's area and which would be part of Rochester's area? Also it would be as if Rochester is considered a part of Buffalo's area but not vice versa. And Fremont is where the A's are thinking of moving. Fremont is estimated to be about 215 K in size, getting closer to Buffalo's size Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts