Why are the Sharks in San Jose and not San Francisco?

[Goldenshark]

http://www.csnbayarea.com/sharks/warriors-owner-wont-shut-door-sharing-new-arena-sharks

Some good news, IMO. As long as "accommodate" isn't like Barclay's Center in Brooklyn

I just saw the interview on Yahoo Sports Live and thought it was awesome. I think it's great that Joe Lacob wants to buy the A's too, that would end all the Moneyball crap, but unfortunately they're not for sale.

 

[Jacob]

SJ is the biggest city in the Bay Area and 10th biggest in the country. For whatever reason SF gets all the prestige but SJ has more people and perhaps more money in the South Bay but that's a toss up. Anyways, the NHL is the only league that gave SJ a team of their own to root for which is part of why they have such a strong following in SJ.

Population doesn't mean much when we're talking about cities whose land area is drastically different. SF's land area is 47 square miles, SJ's is 176 square miles. Anybody who's been to both cities will tell you they're really not even close as far as "size" goes. Downtown San Francisco is Manhattan-esque. Downtown San Jose is more like Boise. San Jose's population is high because of annexation.

 

[The Saw Is the Law]

Bay Area Sharks

 

[Gilligans Island]

I can see a lot of STH dropping their tickets if the team moves to SF, even some of their RS games. (Preseason -- as long as it's not part of the STH package, folks won't complain.)

The majority of fans come from Santa Clara county. It's 45-90 minutes by car (depending on traffic), 60+ minutes by CalTrain, from the north end of the county to downtown SF.

While some (majority?) may drop their STHs, this notion of playing some (say, 4-6 games) in SF is predicated on the belief that

1) it'll help expand their market to SF/northern Alameda county (i.e.., Oakland, Berkeley), northern Contra Costa, northern San Mateo county and Marin county.
2) it will help expand its TV ratings (the low ratings surely drove Jameson to agree to such a horrible TV deal with CSN).

To me, it's all about market expansion in the Bay Area. The Sharks now are niched as a SJ/South Bay team - the name and location as the main factors for that. I believe there is a potential market in the areas mentioned in #1

On #2, even if some current STHs don't renew, they'll surely continue to watch the Sharks.

The obvious downside is revenue may be less for those games not played at SAP Center (since they'd be a tenant). To that, I'd say if this season is any indication (more no shows than in seasons past) this revenue concern shouldn't be so worrisome.

 

[decma]

Someone posted the Warriors and Sharks TV ratings earlier in this thread. I think it was a 4:1 ratio in terms of the Warriors. I'd agree with that.

I don't know NJ or Anaheim well enough to make an intelligent comparison nor do I have any other statistic to cite other than the TV ratings.

I will say that I've live in the Bay Area for 30 years and I have a good cross section of friends/people I know who live in SF, Easy Bay, Peninsula and South Bay. Outside of the South Bay, people in those other areas really don't know much or care about the Sharks.

I recently moved back to Canada after 13 years in SF/Oakland, and my experience was the same. Outside of the core South Bay following, the Sharks were not even on the radar. No one went to games, or was even aware of how the team was doing. They were never on sports talk radio, never talked about at the water cooler, etc.

A lot of sports fans I knew watched the Olympic hockey final in 2010, but this didn't carry over to interest in the NHL.

Its a crowded sports market, with two NFL teams, two MLB teams, a resurgent NBA team, 2 major college programs, and MLS and (again, outside the very loyal, core following in the South Bay), my impression was that the Sharks just hadn't made a dent.

 

[verbalkint47]

Because the hipsters and trust fund kids in Frisco and Oaktown are too progressive to watch hockey. They only follow sports that happen on continents half way across the world. Even then it's only obscure, non mainstream futball teams

 

[Captain Mittens*]

I recently moved back to Canada after 13 years in SF/Oakland, and my experience was the same. Outside of the core South Bay following, the Sharks were not even on the radar. No one went to games, or was even aware of how the team was doing. They were never on sports talk radio, never talked about at the water cooler, etc.

A lot of sports fans I knew watched the Olympic hockey final in 2010, but this didn't carry over to interest in the NHL.

Its a crowded sports market, with two NFL teams, two MLB teams, a resurgent NBA team, 2 major college programs, and MLS and (again, outside the very loyal, core following in the South Bay), my impression was that the Sharks just hadn't made a dent.

Canadians will never understand that with the population in the states, especially in California, that NHL teams can be 3rd, 4th, or 5th tier and still have more than enough hardcore fans to fill an arena. The Sharks shutout streak recently ended at 205.

 

[Killion]

Canadians will never understand that with the population in the states, especially in California, that NHL teams can be 3rd, 4th, or 5th tier and still have more than enough hardcore fans to fill an arena. The Sharks shutout streak recently ended at 205.

Ah, no, most clear thinking Canadians do "get it" BWH. But like anything, its the vocal minority (and its a small minority) that make the most noise.

 

[decma]

Canadians will never understand that with the population in the states, especially in California, that NHL teams can be 3rd, 4th, or 5th tier and still have more than enough hardcore fans to fill an arena. The Sharks shutout streak recently ended at 205.

I agree completely re the Sharks attendance success. Their loyal core following has been enough to fill the rink. My point was in response to a question about their relative popularity in the area. Do you disagree with my impression (and that of Gilligan's Island)?

Regarding population, national population is irrelevant to whether an arena gets filled. Obviously being 5th tier in a large city is enough to get good attendance, but not in a smallish city, regardless of the population of the country which the city is in.

 

[BumFortyOne]

I recently moved back to Canada after 13 years in SF/Oakland, and my experience was the same. Outside of the core South Bay following, the Sharks were not even on the radar. No one went to games, or was even aware of how the team was doing. They were never on sports talk radio, never talked about at the water cooler, etc.

A lot of sports fans I knew watched the Olympic hockey final in 2010, but this didn't carry over to interest in the NHL.

Its a crowded sports market, with two NFL teams, two MLB teams, a resurgent NBA team, 2 major college programs, and MLS and (again, outside the very loyal, core following in the South Bay), my impression was that the Sharks just hadn't made a dent.

This I agree with. Living in Berkeley, I hardly ever see any people wearing Sharks gear, but as noted, it is a very crowded sports market and San Jose is far enough away to be off the radar for most people. I wonder if having the AHL Sharks play out of Oracle might be a good idea to spread more awareness for hockey in general? Relatively cheap pro hockey seems like something the East Bay hipster community might get into.

 

[PCSPounder]

Population doesn't mean much when we're talking about cities whose land area is drastically different. SF's land area is 47 square miles, SJ's is 176 square miles. Anybody who's been to both cities will tell you they're really not even close as far as "size" goes. Downtown San Francisco is Manhattan-esque. Downtown San Jose is more like Boise. San Jose's population is high because of annexation.

Gracious. I moved from one to the other. While there's something very wrong with comparing Boise to San Jose, there's more than a grain of truth there, too.

Ugh.

 

[Killion]

Gracious. I moved from one to the other. While there's something very wrong with comparing Boise to San Jose, there's more than a grain of truth there, too.

Ugh.

Ya... though not a lot of Survivalists in San Jose' PCS.... pickups & Humvee's with NRA bumper stickers & well stocked gun racks in the cab.... was meaning to ask you..... how'd that thing go?.... the Citadel I think it was called?... waitin for the Apocalypse.... no Sir, dont get that in Santa Clara County.......

 

[Gilligans Island]

Because the hipsters and trust fund kids in Frisco and Oaktown are too progressive to watch hockey. They only follow sports that happen on continents half way across the world. Even then it's only obscure, non mainstream futball teams

Frankly, I think those SF and Berkeley/Oakland "hipsters" would like hockey more. The pace is addicting. Plenty of those hipsters came from the east coast where hockey is more popular.

The Sharks problem is again the name and location and how they are marketed. I've lived in both the South Bay, Peninsula and SF for the past 30 years. I think I have good pulse on this area. The Sharks business folks have to decide if they can extend their market in yes, a crowded market.

 

[PCSPounder]

Ya... though not a lot of Survivalists in San Jose' PCS.... pickups & Humvee's with NRA bumper stickers & well stocked gun racks in the cab.... was meaning to ask you..... how'd that thing go?.... the Citadel I think it was called?... waitin for the Apocalypse.... no Sir, dont get that in Santa Clara County.......

Keep in mind that most of Idaho hates Boise. So Northern Idaho was where the racist skinheads usually hung out. Eastern Idaho is rather remote enough for your stone-age survivalist to feel a little elbow room, no matter that the nearby nuclear reservation may make them glow a bit at night.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

San Fransisco's best chance at hockey is a minor league team and as long as their only place to play is the Cow Palace, any team there will bleed money and fail.

So either get the people managing Cow Palace to play ball, build a new arena. Or move on, because California doesn't need another NHL team.

No place NEEDS another NHL team. But California can certainly house another NHL team and succeed. Probably multiple in reality.

 

[Vamos Rafa]

No place NEEDS another NHL team. But California can certainly house another NHL team and succeed. Probably multiple in reality.

I agree with this. The Sharks could use a local rival. Create a rivalry between SF and SJ.

 

[Goldenshark]

I agree with this. The Sharks could use a local rival. Create a rivalry between SF and SJ.

The Bay Area is already oversaturated with pro-sport teams, they don't need a second NHL team, especially with an AHL team coming in next season.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The Bay Area is already oversaturated with pro-sport teams, they don't need a second NHL team, especially with an AHL team coming in next season.

I think if the Sharks are actually going to pursue relocating to San Francisco with Lacob's arena then I think replacing them with a team in San Jose would absolutely work. I also think Sacramento and San Diego would support a team in terms of fans but arena issues will likely prevent that from occurring in either place. And I disagree that it is oversaturated in the Bay Area. All teams get fairly good support.

 

[PCSPounder]

The Bay Area is already oversaturated with pro-sport teams, they don't need a second NHL team, especially with an AHL team coming in next season.

Do you fear a "winner and loser" in that scenario?

Someone tweets a rent increase notice in San Francisco yesterday. Going up from about $2,000/month to over $8,000. Of course, the demand is there, rents are going up because of a scarcity of rental property and that demand. People who can afford that are moving in. The question: can those people ALSO afford hockey season tickets?

Can someone afford to propose rent control legislation? Freaking WTH!

I'd almost want that micro-economy to cool down before I could assess it, frankly.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

The Bay Area is already oversaturated with pro-sport teams, they don't need a second NHL team, especially with an AHL team coming in next season.

I just realized that your AHL team is moving to SJ! Wow...I was thinking somewhere in the Central valley or maybe even Sacramento

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I just realized that your AHL team is moving to SJ! Wow...I was thinking somewhere in the Central valley or maybe even Sacramento

The AHL team moving to SJ is a temporary thing until the new Sharks Ice gets completed or the Sacramento arena gets completed depending on what the organization wants to do...probably the first option.

 

[Goldenshark]

I think if the Sharks are actually going to pursue relocating to San Francisco with Lacob's arena then I think replacing them with a team in San Jose would absolutely work. I also think Sacramento and San Diego would support a team in terms of fans but arena issues will likely prevent that from occurring in either place. And I disagree that it is oversaturated in the Bay Area. All teams get fairly good support.

Right...have you been to an A's game recently? It used to never be as bad as it is now where they tarp off the upper deck, and don't use the excuse of the crappy stadium because if the A's had some real fan support they would still be showing up in numbers for better or worse. If the Giants didn't exist there would be a heck of a lot more fans going to A's games if they were the only baseball game in town.

The Raiders aren't that much better when they had multiple blackouts during the last 10 years and are now tarping off Mt Davis like the A's do. The 49ers on the other hand in their 10 years of misery before Harbaugh arrived were always selling out at a crappy Candlestick Park and never had any blackouts.

The fact the A's want to build a 30,000 seat stadium in San Jose which would be the smallest in MLB and the Raiders want to build a 50,000 seat stadium in Oakland which would be the smallest in the NFL is all you need to know about fan support for these two clubs in the Bay Area.

In my opinion the Bay only needs 4 teams: The 49ers, Giants, Warriors and Sharks. The Raiders and A's are the outcasts that could get much better support in other markets. I personally believe the A's would do really well in Sacramento, the success of their AAA team the RiverCats proves that to me. The Raiders seem destined to move back to LA.

I agree that San Diego would definitely support an NHL team if they could get an Arena built. I would love to see an NHL team in Sacramento but like you said their Arena isn't going to be built for NHL and I honestly don't know if there would be enough support there for one.

 

[Goldenshark]

I just realized that your AHL team is moving to SJ! Wow...I was thinking somewhere in the Central valley or maybe even Sacramento

I'm hoping the Sharks move their AHL team to Sac when their Arena gets finished next year, but we'll see.

 

[Goldenshark]

Do you fear a "winner and loser" in that scenario?

Nope, because I know the Sharks would never allow it and the NHL wouldn't want to hurt their fanbase or make it worse by splitting it up.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Right...have you been to an A's game recently? It used to never be as bad as it is now where they tarp off the upper deck, and don't use the excuse of the crappy stadium because if the A's had some real fan support they would still be showing up in numbers for better or worse. If the Giants didn't exist there would be a heck of a lot more fans going to A's games if they were the only baseball game in town.

The Raiders aren't that much better when they had multiple blackouts during the last 10 years and are now tarping off Mt Davis like the A's do. The 49ers on the other hand in their 10 years of misery before Harbaugh arrived were always selling out at a crappy Candlestick Park and never had any blackouts.

The fact the A's want to build a 30,000 seat stadium in San Jose which would be the smallest in MLB and the Raiders want to build a 50,000 seat stadium in Oakland which would be the smallest in the NFL is all you need to know about fan support for these two clubs in the Bay Area.

In my opinion the Bay only needs 4 teams: The 49ers, Giants, Warriors and Sharks. The Raiders and A's are the outcasts that could get much better support in other markets. I personally believe the A's would do really well in Sacramento, the success of their AAA team the RiverCats proves that to me. The Raiders seem destined to move back to LA.

I agree that San Diego would definitely support an NHL team if they could get an Arena built. I would love to see an NHL team in Sacramento but like you said their Arena isn't going to be built for NHL and I honestly don't know if there would be enough support there for one.

A lot of this stuff with Oakland you have here seems more like bias than an actual logical argument against the two teams. The support for the A's and the Raiders by the fans is there but issues with the stadium and especially with the respective ownership is what fans have issues with. It really has nothing to do with the other franchises in the Bay. And either way, none of that would have anything to do with whether another NHL franchise could succeed in the Bay. If Sharks' ownership decided to move in with the Warriors, you don't think that San Jose wouldn't support a replacement? I would. Whether that SF based franchise would survive is based on whatever tenant agreement they came to but I think SJ has proven that an NHL team would work there and I doubt that a team in SF would change that.