Stadium plans and location issues
The stadium news coming down today seems to be the logical course of action. This has seemed rushed from the beginning, trying to go from intial plans and presentation to having everything basically finalized within a year. That's a pretty short time considering the various approvals needed to go forward with it and the brief timeframe plays into the hands of groups like POWW using fear-mongering tactics to sway people to their side while presenting little in the way of actual facts. I'm also pleased on a personal level because this means that the heated stadium discussions will probably die down soon and this will cease to be a distraction to the great year the team on the field is having. It would be great to just enjoy the success the organization is finally having and not have anything else going on but instead we have this non-baseball stuff demanding lots of news time as well.
What I mainly wanted to bring up today though was the seemingly widespread perception (at least among Tampa residents) that having the stadium on that side of the bay would greatly increase attendance and that the stadium's current location is the reason the turnout is disappointing to some people (it isn't to me but that's a separate issue altogether). This is, in my opinion, bunk.
This school of thought operates off the theory that the inaccessability of the stadium (which isn't nearly as bad as they'd have you believe compared to the travel time for most major league parks anyway) is keeping people away because it's too difficult for them to get out and support the team, but having it in Tampa would make things all rosy. Why the heck should we believe this? For one thing, from what I've heard from people who live in Tampa and see the amount of fans heading back over the bridges after games, there isn't a massive disparity in Hillsborough vs. Pinellas attendance. That strongly suggests that Hillsborough residents are going but, just like Pinellas/Manatee residents, aren't going in as large of numbers as we'd like to see.
Beyond that, why should anyone expect that Tampa residents will show up in massive support? The Buccaneers didn't exactly draw wonderful crowds before they were good, in fact their games were horribly attended except for when other teams fans filled the place (sound familiar?). Would a really bad baseball team have done any better over there? Not likely, in fact I'm sure it wouldn't have been any better in an amount worth noting. So why should we make the assumption that a really bad franchise that is suddenly good would get supported very well in Tampa but not in St. Petersburg? Does the entire area love a winner, ignore a loser, but only in Tampa do they like a loser becoming a winner? What kind of logic is this? It has been pointed out repeatedly by myself and others but I'll say it again. Baseball attendance increases don't happen overnight, especially not for a team that has never had a shred of success in its entire history and was abysmally marketed prior to 2006. It takes more than a month or even three months of good play to really make attendance boom and even later in the season you don't see the effects like you will in the following year. To try to pin the lagging attendance on the stadium's location is a very weak argument that seems to be made more out of the desire to have the team play in Tampa than out of real facts and reasonable assumptions.
2 recs |
29 comments
Comments
Despite your EXTREMELY creepy avatar, you get a hearty "Rec."
Cogently written, and it agrees with me, which is a big thing.
by Top Gun Numba 1 on Jun 25, 2008 3:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
We don't have people around based on their avatars
Otherwise I’d be king of this land.
by R.J. Anderson on Jun 25, 2008 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is the person who took the picture you use as an avatar?
If you are king of this land.
Top Josh Paul Pornos- Big Navi Stroking, 2pitchers1cup, BJ to the Balls
BELIEVE in 08!
by SRQman on Jun 25, 2008 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What’s so creepy about a pretty girl and her flying turtle?
by Jim Wisinski on Jun 25, 2008 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You cant change 10 years in 10 weeks
Come August, if we’re still 15 games above .500 and a game ahead or behind the Red Sox, attendance won’t be a problem. You’re looking at a very small season ticket base because it has been very hard to get excited about a team with one 70 or more win season in their entire history. Most of the ticket sales to games are from people making a day to day decision on whether or not to come.
If you buy season tickets, you are more motivated to come to each and every game because you’ve fronted the money out for those tickets. If you are a game to game person, a lot of things can influence your decision whether or not to attend a game. Bad traffic, tired from work, hot date calls, etc can all influence your decision-making process for the game.
The success from this season will generate more season ticket sales next year, and repeated success will help ramp up successive season ticket sales. Until that happens, attendance will continue to be at the mercy of the day to day decisions that people make. This year, gas prices are influencing decisions for many fans, particularly those of us in the Orlando market that the Rays have reached out to. In my 4cyl car, it costs me $30 of gas to come over for a single game so I only make the trip once a month yet watch every single game on TV or have it on my XM. If it is costing me $30 from Orlando, it is costing someone in Lakeland $15, or someone in Brandon $10, not to mention the lovely experience sitting through the traffic at Malfunction Junction or 275 across the Howard Franklin.
by Jason Collette on Jun 25, 2008 3:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i.e. the lightning
attendance numbers didn’t get a boost when they moved from the thunderdome to the palace, they only went up when the team got good. which side of the bay you are on is inconsequential.
by davidsmarch on Jun 25, 2008 3:30 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
Haven't we had this discussion before?
I recall going in depth about the Bolts attendance numbers and how attendance slowly improved as the team played better, but it took some three years before they started consistently selling out the place.
by kericr on Jun 25, 2008 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Solution:
Build an offshore island equidistant from Tampa and St Pete and build the ballpark there.

by Kevin Gengler on Jun 25, 2008 3:38 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
It will only work if the MLB lets them use phosphate for the pitchers mound
by Top Gun Numba 1 on Jun 25, 2008 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would be better if it were built on a floating platform.
Then they could take turns dragging it from one side of the bay to the other. It could dock on each side for half the games. Then at the end of the year we could see which games were more highly attended and then we could end this debate. Makes perfect sense, right?
The artist formerly known as TonyT
by acelion on Jun 25, 2008 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
St. Pete doesnt deserve this team-
Looking at all the idiots rejoice on the times website make sme sick.
by Hazleton Jason on Jun 25, 2008 3:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The problem with attendance...
Is that there season ticket number are low (as a result of the past 10 years) which prevents them from having large attendance figures on a nightly basis. It is almost impossible for a walk up crowd of 20,000 + every night. The attendance figures are up and i think if we are having the same problems next year then there should be some discussion.
Protect the Trop: Keep northerners out.
by St Pete Native on Jun 25, 2008 3:57 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Rec'd for a good point
While our attendance figures may appear low, when the announced attendance is 17k, it actually looks like there’s 17,000 people in the stands, as opposed to some other teams (rangers, orioles), who announce figures in the low-to-mid-twenties, yet actual people present look more like half that.
by kericr on Jun 25, 2008 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Rays don't inflate attendance numbers
at least not now. I can recall going years ago and there is no way there were 5,000 people in the stands and the would announce a crowd of 12,000. Our numbers this year are legit. There have been several games where I have thought the crowds were larger than they announced. After the upcoming Red Sox series we will have an average attendance of over 20,000 this year. That is a huge improvement. If we keep winning I can guarantee we will break the franchise attendance record set our inaugural year. That’s nothing to shake a stick at
by Sveet on Jun 25, 2008 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally....
I’d have season tickets if the team was in Tampa. Of course I live in Lakeland and I am with out a doubt in the minority. I will, however, have to disagree with you on this one Jim. Neither of us have any solid proof to back up our opinions and never will.
www.citadel-insurance.com
by SeanDubbs on Jun 25, 2008 4:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t doubt that people who don’t have season tickets now or don’t go to as many games as they might like to because of the distance they live from the stadium would start going/buying season tickets if the stadium was in Tampa. However, and this is a point that I think is usually ignored by the pro-Tampa base, that will be at least mostly balanced out by people who live close now but would then live far away and wouldn’t buy season tickets or go to as many games. It seems like it’s just assumed that moving to Tampa will mean that the attendance will be everybody that goes now + people in Hillsborough county that won’t/can’t make the drive. That is of course not true, not everybody that attends a game in St. Pete would attend that same game if it was in Tampa.
by Jim Wisinski on Jun 25, 2008 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely
The Rays would lose a good amount of attendees from the Sarasota/Bradenton area I’m sure. It’s just in Tampa if you span out from a 30 miles radius in all directions I’d estimate a minimum population increase of 30%. Let’s dumb the math down a little bit and say this would result in a 15% increase in attendance. That’s my logic but ultimately the distance people are willing to travel increase with a teams win percentage.
www.citadel-insurance.com
by SeanDubbs on Jun 25, 2008 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will not lie
My wanting the team to be in Tampa is purely selfish. When I’m not living at USF, I’m in Lakeland and St. Pete is just much further to drive than going to a Lightning game or a Bucs or Bulls football game. I completely understand your argument and can’t argue against the points you or the others have made. I think the Rays will have good attendance numbers by next year. We can already see them creeping up slowly, and by this time next year they should be at a good level. As long as our boys stay in the Bay Area then I will be happy…although a Channelside stadium would still be convenient.
Blake
USF--Class of '09
by usfraysfan on Jun 25, 2008 9:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
then you have the opposite
I live in Sarasota and I don’t think I could handle the drive to Tampa everyday. It would have to be where I could take 75 not 275, then I might consider it.
Top Josh Paul Pornos- Big Navi Stroking, 2pitchers1cup, BJ to the Balls
BELIEVE in 08!
by SRQman on Jun 25, 2008 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I live in the Largo area, so it is all relatively the same to me. The Trop is 45 mins away and so is Channelside. Selfishly I’d prefer Channelside over the proposed site because I think it is a better atmosphere. But I do think attendance will pick up in the Channelside area compared to the current location. Frankly there just isn’t many St Pete people going to the games. There would be more locals going to the game in Tampa than there would be in St Pete. Secondly as someone mentioned it is pure numbers. You’d have more people living closer to the stadium than you do now in drive time.
I’ll be going to the games either way.
by matthan on Jun 26, 2008 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very true
If a 30 mile radius was drawn around the Trop, you would see way too much of the area of the circle taken up by water, and of the proportion that would be taken up by land, you would also find a considerable amount of the people in close proximity to the stadium being the old crochety transplants.
Blake
USF--Class of '09
by usfraysfan on Jun 26, 2008 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs




















