Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Wilt_The_Stilt_ t1_j5ih5aw wrote

Reply to comment by IMovedYourCheese in NFL stadium distances from the city center. by fruttypebbles

While that makes sense from an economic point of view that’s kind of like saying the packers would be ok to move their stadium to Sheboygan because it’s closer to a lot more people in Milwaukee than it otherwise would be in downtown Green Bay.

Sure that’s probably true. But it’s a betrayal of the heart of the team. It’s not the Bay Area 49ers or the sam Jose or Santa Clara 49ers. It’s the San Francisco 49ers. For the same reason the raiders would never have moved to SF.

13

DL_22 t1_j5ipwpb wrote

Packers played 4 games a year in Milwaukee for 40 years. They only went full time again after Lambeau was renovated in the 90s.

2

Wilt_The_Stilt_ t1_j5iqe4w wrote

And the 9ers play zero games a year in San Francisco because they built their stadium 40 miles south of the 800,000 person city they are in. Which is roughly 8x larger than Green Bay.

1

dbausano t1_j5jl20g wrote

I’m not sure I agree with you when you say it’s a betrayal to the heart of the team.

I know that football and baseball are different in terms of economics (salary cap, team values, etc), but when the Atlanta Braves moved out of downtown to the suburbs, it has been a major success in spite of all those who said it wouldn’t work. The stadium is now much closer to the majority of fans, attendance has increased, game day experience is much better, and these factors have led to an increased payroll and a better team on the field. All that said, the Braves only moved about 15 miles away vs however far the 49ers are, but I don’t think you can find anyone now (other than city of Atlanta politicians) who would say that it wasn’t the right move.

I guess my whole point is that doing what’s best for the team will pay off in the long run even if it means having a different address.

1

Wilt_The_Stilt_ t1_j5kbpqm wrote

I’ll start by making two disclaimers:

  1. I am not remotely familiar with Atlanta geography or culture so please let me know if I make mistakes there.
  2. San Francisco geography and cultural divides are very complicated and my opinion is that of a non native (though I’ve been here over 10 years) who has lived in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco and notably NOT in the South Bay.

/disclosures

The big difference I see between your example with the braves and the 49ers is Atlanta is a major city surrounded by Atlanta suburbs. San Francisco is a major city surrounded by mostly water which is then surrounded by several other major cities, notably Oakland and San Jose.

This either cities have their own identities and cultures that are distinct from San Francisco. Collectively those three cities and the other around and in between make up the “Bay Area” so differentiating between a city and the Bay Area can be difficult.

The warriors (NBA) for example recently moved from Oakland. Across the bay into San Francisco. Very controversial. But they justified it by saying they are the “golden state warriors” not the Oakland warriors and they are the bay areas basketball team. Now that is very much open for debate and I’m sure most Oakland natives still have strong negative feelings about that.

On the flip side we have the San Francisco 49ers who are IMO Sam Francisco’s football team. For about 30 years they were not the only game in town and thus not universally the bay areas football team. Though very much open for debate considering the raiders were in LA, then Oakland, and now are gone. So moving them so far away makes me feel not like they are in a suburb of San Francisco but instead in nearly the heart of another city, San Jose. They are 8 molded from downtown San Jose and 40 miles from downtown San Francisco. San Jose is still very much Bay Area and they do not have another football team but I would imagine a large portion of their residents have been raiders fans for years (it’s just as far from the old raiders stadium to San Jose as it was from the old 49ers stadium).

As for being better economically, I don’t think the 49ers ever had attendance issues. They’ve been a very successful team historically I think the major economic driver was the cost to build in SF vs down south. While San Jose is by no means cheap, San Francisco is extremely dense and finding the space to build was probably going to be wildly complicated and expensive. The warriors managed to figure something out but I guess the 49ers couldn’t/wouldn’t.

2

dbausano t1_j5lo0bz wrote

I admittedly don’t know many details about San Francisco geography and team rooting interests/loyalty, but your response made sense. This past summer I happened to drive by where the 49ers play, and I was surprised at how far away it seemed from San Francisco. But I just assumed it was still in the heart of 49ers country. I guess the real lesson is owners will do whatever they want, fans be damned!

1