Oakland Raiders Move to Las Vegas? (vs, cheapest, arena)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bring in the Raiders and bring in more jobs. $9.50 hr or less starting wage. Some rents will go up. First year a Super Bowl. Maybe move the Pro Bowl to Vegas. At some point it's going to be Hockey, Football, Basketball and Soccer on a professional level either full-time or event by event in Vegas.
People are going to come in droves with sports packages. Get ready to make money in the Trump era. The nationwide building boom is about to start. People are going to spend money.
The article above disagrees. There are risks but don't ignore the potential rewards at the same time.
People keep posting this article and I've explained several times why it is inaccurate. Here we go again:
The author doesn't understand how the NFL measures markets. He says Las Vegas would be larger than four other NFL markets by taking the Nielsen market size of the DMA where the stadium is located and that's it. That isn't what the NFL does. The NFL has what are called primary and secondary markets. The DMA where the stadium is located is the primary. All teams have one primary except Green Bay, which has two. Milwaukee is the other and is bigger by itself than Las Vegas. The PFT author automatically gets an F for not knowing that.
Secondary markets are the DMAs where any portion is within 75 miles of the stadium. For example, the Detroit Lions have Lansing, Flint, Toledo and Windsor. These DMAs are its additional marketing territories. This is where all road games are required to be aired, merchandising exclusivity agreements exist, and where additional team media is exclusive. These markets could not air non-sellouts back when the blackout rule existed.
There are two DMAs located within 75 miles of the proposed Las Vegas stadium. The Raiders couldn't claim either one because both are primary markets of other NFL teams (Los Angeles and Phoenix). Therefore, Las Vegas would be the only NFL team without any secondary markets. This is where every other team would beat Las Vegas.
But wait, New Orleans, Buffalo and Jacksonville are smaller!!!
The cities themselves are smaller than the Las Vegas DMA, but the markets aren't. Buffalo has Toronto as a secondary market. Jacksonville has Orlando. Both are bigger than Las Vegas before including other secondaries like Erie and Rochester for the Bills and Savannah and Gainesville for the Jaguars.
Baton Rouge and Biloxi are secondaries of the Saints. It is currently the smallest NFL market. It is 50% larger than what would be the Las Vegas Raiders' territory.
You may think none of this matters but it is exactly what the NFL owners are discussing. They don't care about the "Las Vegas is different" nonsense. In fact, it works against it. The NFL wants local fans to buy all the tickets. The market size makes that about impossible.
People keep posting this article and I've explained several times why it is inaccurate. Here we go again:
The author doesn't understand how the NFL measures markets. He says Las Vegas would be larger than four other NFL markets by taking the Nielsen market size of the DMA where the stadium is located and that's it. That isn't what the NFL does. The NFL has what are called primary and secondary markets. The DMA where the stadium is located is the primary. All teams have one primary except Green Bay, which has two. Milwaukee is the other and is bigger by itself than Las Vegas. The PFT author automatically gets an F for not knowing that.
Secondary markets are the DMAs where any portion is within 75 miles of the stadium. For example, the Detroit Lions have Lansing, Flint, Toledo and Windsor. These DMAs are its additional marketing territories. This is where all road games are required to be aired, merchandising exclusivity agreements exist, and where additional team media is exclusive. These markets could not air non-sellouts back when the blackout rule existed.
There are two DMAs located within 75 miles of the proposed Las Vegas stadium. The Raiders couldn't claim either one because both are primary markets of other NFL teams (Los Angeles and Phoenix). Therefore, Las Vegas would be the only NFL team without any secondary markets. This is where every other team would beat Las Vegas.
But wait, New Orleans, Buffalo and Jacksonville are smaller!!!
The cities themselves are smaller than the Las Vegas DMA, but the markets aren't. Buffalo has Toronto as a secondary market. Jacksonville has Orlando. Both are bigger than Las Vegas before including other secondaries like Erie and Rochester for the Bills and Savannah and Gainesville for the Jaguars.
Baton Rouge and Biloxi are secondaries of the Saints. It is currently the smallest NFL market. It is 50% larger than what would be the Las Vegas Raiders' territory.
You may think none of this matters but it is exactly what the NFL owners are discussing. They don't care about the "Las Vegas is different" nonsense. In fact, it works against it. The NFL wants local fans to buy all the tickets. The market size makes that about impossible.
You or the NFL are over analyzing. I will just pick on Buffalo. They get a tiny percentage of Toronto, not much more of Rochester and some of Erie...Altogether won't get near Vegas.
And the Vegas locals effectively live all over the country...fact of life. And a western team out of Vegas may get large regionlal support...particular from places like San Diego who now put the evil eye on the Chargers.
And again Las Vegas will do OK off the stadium whether or not the Raiders do well. It will simply be able to make better use of the facility than anywhere else in the country.
You or the NFL are over analyzing. I will just pick on Buffalo. They get a tiny percentage of Toronto, not much more of Rochester and some of Erie...Altogether won't get near Vegas.
And the Vegas locals effectively live all over the country...fact of life. And a western team out of Vegas may get large regionlal support...particular from places like San Diego who now put the evil eye on the Chargers.
And again Las Vegas will do OK off the stadium whether or not the Raiders do well. It will simply be able to make better use of the facility than anywhere else in the country.
This is irrelevant. It's the market size that is being discussed, which is the exclusivity reach. That's what a team's market is by definition. That's what that PFT article hoped to discuss but failed.
Winning cures all ails. If the Bills didn't suck for two decades, they would have a larger fan base. If they ever one day put together good teams again, they are guaranteed that reach, an advantage Las Vegas will never have. This presents a big problem as far as the NFL is concerned. It is far more important of a topic than sports betting.
Using your metric, we'd need to figure out what % of people in Las Vegas are fans of other teams and will never convert. That isn't especially helpful because if the team starts winning, it will attract more fans in its market, even those that currently cheer for other teams and claim today that they will never change. It will have a harder time doing so when that market number is exactly one DMA which is the 40th in the country.
Sure, Reno will probably air all Raiders games, even without the secondary market designation. They already do most of the time now. If you're going to include that then go ahead and add Mobile to the Saints, Syracuse to the Bills, Marquette to the Packers and Tallahassee to the Jaguars. Las Vegas is still in dead last in terms of media reach.
NFL ratings go beyond the actual broadcast. The NFL needs to consider NFL Network coverage during the week, pregame shows, postgame shows and Sunday night coaching shows. Las Vegas having a team doesn't help any of that. It probably hurts if current Raiders fans walk away.
I'm not arguing the NFL is right. These are the rules they all agreed to using. This is exactly the discussion they are having.
This is irrelevant. It's the market size that is being discussed, which is the exclusivity reach. That's what a team's market is by definition. That's what that PFT article hoped to discuss but failed.
Winning cures all ails. If the Bills didn't suck for two decades, they would have a larger fan base. If they ever one day put together good teams again, they are guaranteed that reach, an advantage Las Vegas will never have. This presents a big problem as far as the NFL is concerned. It is far more important of a topic than sports betting.
Using your metric, we'd need to figure out what % of people in Las Vegas are fans of other teams and will never convert. That isn't especially helpful because if the team starts winning, it will attract more fans in its market, even those that currently cheer for other teams and claim today that they will never change. It will have a harder time doing so when that market number is exactly one DMA which is the 40th in the country.
Sure, Reno will probably air all Raiders games, even without the secondary market designation. They already do most of the time now. If you're going to include that then go ahead and add Mobile to the Saints, Syracuse to the Bills, Marquette to the Packers and Tallahassee to the Jaguars. Las Vegas is still in dead last in terms of media reach.
NFL ratings go beyond the actual broadcast. The NFL needs to consider NFL Network coverage during the week, pregame shows, postgame shows and Sunday night coaching shows. Las Vegas having a team doesn't help any of that. It probably hurts if current Raiders fans walk away.
I'm not arguing the NFL is right. These are the rules they all agreed to using. This is exactly the discussion they are having.
You are simply over complexing the problem with a lot of rubbish that has no bearing. It may well be the NFL does all this weird analysis...But it still has virtually no bearing on anything other than their willingness to agree. And it sounds like they are going to do that.
Apropos of this discussion had a lady out looking at houses today from San Diego. She was of the opinion that buying a house for she and for her significant other needed to happen quickly because of the Raiders. She believed it important enough to actually cause a significant move to LV and a rise in home prices. I find that all somewhat amazing but if she represents a real trend we are going to see a lot of home sales.
You are simply over complexing the problem with a lot of rubbish that has no bearing. It may well be the NFL does all this weird analysis...But it still has virtually no bearing on anything other than their willingness to agree. And it sounds like they are going to do that.
Apropos of this discussion had a lady out looking at houses today from San Diego. She was of the opinion that buying a house for she and for her significant other needed to happen quickly because of the Raiders. She believed it important enough to actually cause a significant move to LV and a rise in home prices. I find that all somewhat amazing but if she represents a real trend we are going to see a lot of home sales.
No. I'm telling you exactly what the NFL rules are and what they are doing in the approval process. I'm also proving the fact that Las Vegas would be the smallest market in NFL, contrary to what some blogger wrote that didn't even know Milwaukee and Green Bay are the same primary market.
Maybe you use a different formula. The NFL doesn't and that is all that matters.
I also see that you are a real estate agent and shown why real estate agents might think this benefits them. I guess we all have our reasons but I would think improving the schools would make Las Vegas an easier sell than an astronomical tax on a stadium for a perenially awful team with a terrible reputation. Maybe your experience says otherwise.
I just read an article where Commisioner Sisolak states his preference for the Bali Hai location. He seems to want the stadium to be in the background of all the future Welcome to Las Vegas sign photos.
...
Apropos of this discussion had a lady out looking at houses today from San Diego. She was of the opinion that buying a house for she and for her significant other needed to happen quickly because of the Raiders. She believed it important enough to actually cause a significant move to LV and a rise in home prices. I find that all somewhat amazing but if she represents a real trend we are going to see a lot of home sales.
Apropos is a fancy word. Anecdotal, not so much.
In any event, what if house prices rise? Who does that benefit? Does that make them magically more affordable, or are we just celebrating because we like up-trends and increases?
Unfortunately, I also am with the masses. Dumb like that. I do want an NFL team here. Even though we are sacrificing our (women and) children.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
