Are the Tampa Bay Rays Actually Rooting for Bad Attendance?

Top question I get regarding the Rays Stadium Saga: "Where will the team be playing in 2027?"

Answer: I don't know.

Second most-frequent question I'm asked about the Rays: "Do you think the team is intentionally tanking at the box office?"

This answer is a bit more nuanced.

No, I don't think the team is trying to suppress attendance like the Cleveland Indians did in the movie Major League.

However, like that Roger Dorn- and Ricky Vaughn-led Indians team, it doesn't hurt the Rays' argument for relocation when one can count all the fans in any given section using just your fingers and toes.

This week has been an especially-futile one for the Rays, drawing a franchise-low crowd of 5,786 Tuesday, followed by just 6,166 Wednesday, despite racking up a six-game win-streak and closing to within a half-game of the red-hot Yankees for first place in the AL East.

Thank goodness for the Miami Marlins, whose 9,478 fans per night (at their modern, taxpayer-funded stadium) is the only thing keeping the Rays' 13,731 per-game average from another last-place MLB finish.

Attendance at the Trop is actually up 51 fans per game from the same point last year, and it would have been higher had the Rays not closed off their upper deck this season, limiting attendance to just 25,025 at each of their three sellouts so far.

Closing off the upper deck has also allowed the Rays to reduce day-of-game operating costs, while reducing the number of cheap seats available to fans; it's essentially a ticket-price hike for games that draw a half-decent crowd.

Yet, most nights, there's no shortage of good, cheap seats available....why?

It isn't because the Rays want empty seats, or even need them to make their point about long-term profitability.

It's more likely that the team's repeated mantra of "our home is not a good home to play or watch baseball in" has become a self-fulfilling prophecy over the last ten seasons. If you repeat something enough, people will eventually believe you.

Anecdotally, I think another factor is the team's not-so-subtle reminders they may be playing in another state come 2027; I've seen this push would-be fanatics away from the team.

So the Rays essentially find themselves in the same death spiral the Expos fell victim to in their last few, uncertain seasons in Montreal....with one difference: profits.

MLB's business model is much different now than it was in 2004, with a much bigger share of revenue coming from digital and broadcast rights than from inside the stadium.

Not to mention, even though the Rays may not be drawing any more fans than they did last year, if they raised the average price of tickets, they can continue to increase revenues without an increase at the box office.

The Rays haven't responded to my requests for comment in a very long time, but team president Brian Auld told ABC Action News, “We appreciate the support of our fans, and we believe that St. Petersburg, Tampa and the entire Tampa Bay region will rally around this exciting and compelling Rays team.”

I truly believe Auld and Matt Silverman and Melanie Lenz and the rest of the Rays' front office wants to make a new Tampa Bay ballpark happen...but it simply won't under Stu Sternberg's watch if he has to pay for it.

I also believe Rays executives would like more fans to come out to watch their great product; they may be making healthy profits (most MLB teams are), but there's always a thirst for more.

So no, the Rays have no reason to root for lower attendance - a few thousand fans here or there won't do much to change their stadium situation. But as long as the revenues keep flowing in, I don't know if the team really minds the bad box office numbers, either.

---

Get Shadow of the Stadium delivered straight to your inbox

FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

Hagan and Kriseman are still squabbling, and the Rays are still loving it

Hillsborough County didn't appear to come close to luring the Tampa Bay Rays over to Ybor City during a three-year negotiating window, but it isn't stopping Tampa's biggest stadium cheerleader, County Commissioner Ken Hagan, from launching bombs across the bay.

"I think it's incumbent on St. Pete and for Mayor (Rick) Kriseman to stop being shortsighted to see the big picture," Hagan told WTVT on Wednesday, suggesting St. Pete should grant the team another negotiating window with Tampa.
Kriseman responded in kind on Twitter, "#FloridaMan suffers short-term memory loss, forgets St. Pete's regional approach and the 3 years he had to find a stadium solution."
The Tampa vs. St. Pete tug-of-war continues...and the Rays are likely delighted. Because if the team really wants that hugely-subsidized stadium in Tampa Bay, it doesn't hurt to have two parties competing (and bidding) against each other.

So why do Tampa and St. Pete keep bickering instead of working together on a multi-regional funding approach, as other MLB markets have done to keep their teams? It's a question neither Hagan nor Kriseman nor former Mayor Bob Buckhorn have ever really answered.
Hagan now ignores questions outright from certain reporters, but in his comments to friendly face Kevin O'Donnell at WTVT, continued to criticize Kriseman: "The worst thing for St. Pete, for the Tampa Bay Rays, and for Tampa/Hillsborough County is the status quo. We recognize that, the Rays recognize that, and now I think Mayor Kriseman and St. Pete needs to recognize that."

The Rays are not currently allowed to talk to Hagan or the stadium consultant still working on behalf of the Tampa Sports Authority (TSA) about a new stadium, per their contract with St. Petersburg. They need written approval and permission from St. Pete's city council to explore any replacement stadium outside city limits prior to 2027.
Kriseman, to his credit, has gone further than any other Pinellas politician in helping the Rays explore stadium sites in Tampa, sticking his neck out in 2015 to secure an amendment from city council that allowed the Rays three years to talk to Hillsborough County - talks that exposed just how little money (and appetite) there was available for a fourth publicly-subsidized stadium in Hillsborough.

Kriseman is also pretty much fed-up with the lack of progress in redeveloping the 85 highly-sought-after Tropicana Field acres in the middle of his downtown. He wants to know if the Rays are staying or going, so the city can capitalize on the hot economy before development slows.

Hagan appears to be no different. 

Closely connected to Tampa's network of real estate and property developers, the commissioner has been the region's single-bigger booster of a proposed new Ybor stadium and redeveloped ballpark district. 

Hagan's last three re-election campaigns have all featured promises to help get the Rays a new stadium, including a 2010 pledge not to use public funds on the project. He has since changed his tune, publicly supporting a number of different subsidies to help the Rays finance their nearly-$1 billion plan to build a park in Ybor City.

And now, he is working to get a deal done - not with his fellow county commissioners and county staff - but through his board seat on the Tampa Sports Authority (TSA), an agency seen as more stadium-friendly than the county commissioner. When contacted by a reporter last week, neither Hagan nor a TSA spokesman provided any comment.

At the end of the day, stadium squabbling only helps the Rays; it might force Hillsborough and Pinellas to work together for once on this issue; it might add fuel to the fire in a tug-of-war that could shake more money out of tight taxpayer pockets; or it might reveal how little interest there really is in Tampa Bay to fund another stadium.

Don't forget sports fans - the Bucs' lease is up in 2027 as well, and they'll undoubtedly be soon looking for your tax dollars again too. Hillsborough is stretched thin on bed tax dollars, currently paying down debt on Raymond James Stadium, Steinbrenner Field, and Amalie Arena.

So regardless if you think Hagan is wrong to treat Kriseman like an enemy instead of an ally, he's definitely right about one thing: the Rays will only be as loyal to Tampa Bay as Tampa Bay is loyal to subsidizing their next home, and keeping the team for decades to come will come with a price.

UPDATE: Kriseman tweeted a reply to this article.

---

Get Shadow of the Stadium delivered straight to your inbox

FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

Why USF is right (and UCF is wrong) about 2-for-1 football series

The USF Bulls announced Thursday, to the delight of their football fans, an agreement to play three games again perennial powerhouse Alabama. The teams will meet in Tampa in 2023, then Tuscaloosa in 2024 and 2026.

Not delighted: University of Central Florida fans.

See, the growing Golden Knights fan base, an increasingly-loud force on social media known as the “UCF Mafia," have been echoing their outspoken Athletic Director, Danny White, complaining the biggest college football programs in the country were “afraid“ to schedule them.

That turned out to be untrue, as Florida's athletic director had contacted White about a series - and White wasn't interested.

White's talking points then changed, complaining about the terms the NCAA's largest football programs demand from a relatively low-income program like UCF: two games at their house in exchange for one at yours.

"We shouldn't have to" accept a 2-for-1 series, UCF Nation argues on behalf of fairness, saying they'd be giving up a competitive advantage as well as revenue from the loss of a half home game over the three-season agreement.

But see, the financial issue really isn't that significant. Public records reveal the school took in just $4.6 million from football tickets during their undefeated 2017 season. That's $764,500 per game. So to lose half a game's gate ($382,000 over the course of three seasons) is hardly enough reason to shun a great match-up.

For UCF, it's about pride and admitting they're not an NCAA powerhouse yet where it matters most: revenue.

UCF's athletics budget in FY18 was $62 million. And more than almost any other school in the nation, those expenses are balanced on the backs of students.

Student fees accounted for $23.1 million of UCF's athletic revenue - that's a mandatory fee for every student who attends classes at the university, even though most will never go to a single football game. UCF supported its athletics program with another $4.5 million last year from its main (academics) operations.

Most NCAA programs don't bring in enough revenue to support their entire athletics budget, so UCF is not alone. But its revenues are far enough behind the teams in the "Power 5" conferences to explain why they don't get to call their own shots on scheduling like Florida, Alabama, and Texas do.

Last year, UCF upped its booster donations to $8.2 million - a great haul for an American Athletic Conference team, but a far cry from the $43.3 million in donations the University of Florida used on its athletics program last year or the $55.1 million Florida State reported collecting. Of course, AAC conference revenues also pale in comparison to those UF and FSU collect from the SEC and ACC, respectively.

USF, meanwhile, whose booster contributions dropped to just $2.2 million last year, has clearly taken a different strategy when it comes to building alumni support and its program's revenues while playing in the not-so-lucrative AAC.

The Bulls' just-announced series with Alabama is only the latest 2-for-1 concession the program has agreed to; earlier this month, it announced three-game series with Miami and Texas; last year, it announced a 2-for-1 series against the Florida Gators.

USF hopes to parlay the big events - and potentially big upset wins - into excitement for the program. Excitement can be translated into new ticket sales, bigger booster donations, and larger revenues.

Perhaps most importantly, a bigger following could mean better TV ratings, the golden ticket into a Power 5 conference like the Big 12, which would deliver the monster broadcast and tournament revenues the Bulls and Knights both desperately long for.

But right now, neither USF nor UCF has done enough to impress the Big 12 - remember, it's more about the dollars than the wins. And while both programs seem to be heading in right direction, it's very slow growth on the budget sheet.

Frankly, the growth is much slower than UCF would like to admit.

It's a long and unfair process that favors the traditional powerhouses and schools that turned their back on conferences like the Big East in favor of the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, and Pac-12.

The system is stacked against low-revenue teams like USF and UCF, but complaining about it does about as much good as the Rays complaining they are expected to compete against the Red Sox and Yankees every year.

Fortunately for USF and UCF - they do have a choice, and do have a pathway to prove themselves against the best teams in the country, like Alabama, who are under zero obligation to schedule additional tough games outside the already-toughest schedules in the country.

And if a school like UCF decides it doesn't like the terms of the deal, they have every right to reject it.

However, when UCF chooses to reject those options, they should also lose the right to complain about the lack of big games on their schedule.

---

Get Shadow of the Stadium delivered straight to your inbox

FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook

Yes, Hillsborough & Tampa are Still Trying to Build a New Rays Stadium

Cross-posted from FloridaPolitics.com

The Tampa Bay Rays may have struck out in getting Hillsborough County to help them build and finance a new stadium in Ybor City, but it hasn’t stopped the public money from flowing to a Tampa/Hillsborough stadium consultant.

The Tampa Sports Authority, funded by the city of Tampa and Hillsborough County, continues to pay for consultant Irwin Raij, an attorney originally hired by the county in 2014 for his expertise in stadium negotiations.

Hillsborough County spent more than $700,000 for Raij’s consulting services between 2014 and 2018, including $331,436 last year alone. That’s an average of $150,000 per year, until the relationship was transferred over to the Tampa Sports Authority (TSA) late in 2018.

TSA directors are considered a friendlier public board to the Rays’ stadium campaign than Hillsborough’s Board of County Commissioners, even though county dollars help fund the sports authority.

The Rays closed the door on a three-year negotiating window with Tampa and Hillsborough County in December, indicating local governments and businesses did not bring nearly enough money to the table to advance their Ybor City stadium plans.

The team is currently prohibited from speaking to any community other than St. Petersburg about stadium construction or relocation before 2027, but the TSA has continued to pay for Raij’s consulting; $58,431 since the start of 2019.

Many in Tampa believe there are still enough dollars to make a stadium work there someday, and they are holding out hope that the Rays’ lack of 2019 progress with St. Petersburg is a sign they’re still hoping to cross the bay.

A TSA spokesperson did not return multiple requests for comment this week, nor did TSA Chief Operating Officer Eric Hart or Hillsborough’s lead stadium negotiator, County Commissioner Ken Hagan, when contacted Thursday.

Raij is considered one of the nation’s foremost experts on pro stadium matters; not only is he billing more than $100,000 a year from Tampa Bay taxpayers, but WTSP revealed in December that he is also collecting paychecks to consult on Portland’s bid to secure an MLB team, possibly through relocation.

---

Get Shadow of the Stadium delivered straight to your inbox

FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Twitter
FOLLOW: Shadow of the Stadium on Facebook