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.
You don't think the amount of money made, taxed, and then distributed out back into the economy has an effect on the quality of a city? Can a population of a city or metro stand all the tax subsidization generally associated with having professional sports teams? Stadium building? A population RICH ENOUGH to afford to take the family to one? Those aren't measures of a city? The infrastructure to support all that comes along with a team, or teams?
Food for thought:
I know they are not sports teams. I KNOW THEY AREN'T.
But consider Midway and O'Hare. Midway is completely inside Chicago city limits. O'Hare by an sane person's mind is in Rosemont, Il. But O'Hare IS a part of Chicago through "Politics". Chicago, not Rosemont, gets tax money from O'Hare.
Is there any way the Meadowlands could be the "O'Hare" of NYC? Or do boundary lines *really* matter?
Well when NYC and the Meadowlands host the Super Bowl, NJ gets 25% and NYC gets 75% of the cut
I am not disagreeing with your points but on this topic I still dont see how it is relevant to the specific topic. Maybe in this context you could say based on where a celebratory parade would be
For the Devils it was in Jersey oddly enough but for the Giants, well believe Broadway if I am not mistaken
On revenues, tax, services etc that is more for another discussion IMHO
For the Devils it was in Jersey oddly enough but for the Giants, well believe Broadway if I am not mistaken
Oddly enough? (Or is that sarcasm?) Why in the world would it not be in NJ? It's a NJ team!
I do like your criteria though. We really need to tighten up the OP. Is the question how many teams represent a city? Or how many teams are located with the metropolitan area (regardless of their identity)? Two different things.
Of course if we are talking about representation we run into the problem of teams supposedly representing the whole state.
"Are Professional Sports a good measure of a city"?
Unless the question is one of "Metro", then we're going in the right direction.
Okay, I may just be an idiot then. If it's so clear tell me -- are we allowed to count only teams that play within the city limits (regardless of whether they represent city, multiple cities, state, region or another city) but not teams that play outside the city limits even if they represent that city?
Did I get that right? So East Rutherford, NJ (population 9,000) gets the credit for 3 teams, same as Boston and DC... Correct?
If that's the issue, wouldn't the more appropriate question be "Is the number of Professional Sports teams that play within city limits a good measure of a city". And do you think that's an intelligent question?
Also, I am curious on your thoughts as to who gets the credit for Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, and why.
This topic has got me thinking, and doing a little research.
Chicago has 5 teams WITHIN the city boundaries. Not the CSA, MSA, TSA, PSA, or PTA.
New York has 5 teams within the 5 Boroughs
Minneapolis has 5 teams within the city limits.
L.A. has 4 teams within the city limits.
Philadelphia has 4 teams within the city limits.
Denver has 4 teams within the city limits.
Washington DC has 4 teams within the city limits.
Phoenix has 4 teams within the city limits (5 if you count the Rattlers).
Boston has 3 teams within the city limits.
Detroit has 3 teams within the city limits.
Dallas has 2 teams within the city limits.
Miami has 2 teams within the city limits.
San Francisco has 2 teams within the city limits.
Some corrections:
1. The Phoenix Coyotes and the Arizona Cardinals both play in Glendale, so Phoenix only has two "Big 4" teams in the city limits.
2. The Washington Redskins play outside of the district near Landover, MD, so Washington only has 3 teams in the city limits.
3. The Minnesota Wild play in St. Paul rather than Minneapolis, so Minneapolis has 3 teams in the city limits. The Twin Cities are a special case, of course, but you still can't say that all the teams are in the same city.
...the city there with the most sports teams within city limits is Oakland (Athletics, Warriors, and Raiders), and not as many would expect, San Francisco.
For the sake of simplicity, this covers only the "big four" professional sports leagues: the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL.
Chicago has all five of its teams in its city limits. Philadelphia, Denver and Los Angeles have all four of their teams in their city limits, and New York has four of its seven teams in its city limits (Yankees, Mets, Knicks, Rangers).
Pittsburgh, Cleveland, St. Louis, Atlanta and Houston have all three of their teams in their city limits, and Boston (Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins), Washington DC (Nationals, Wizards, Capitals), Detroit (Lions, Tigers, Red Wings) and Minneapolis (Vikings, Twins, Timberwolves) each have three of their four teams in their city limits. Every other city has two or fewer professional sports teams in its city limits.
For the record, since the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim have two cities listed in the team's name, the tie is broken by which city the team is actually located in. (Anaheim wins.)
The Ducks do try to brand themselves as an Orange County Team. Very similar to the way the Islanders are the Long Island Team and the Devils are the NJ Team. But thats Hockey with a smaller fan base.
The Angels on the other hand, and much to the chagrin of Orange County Fans and the city of Anaheim do try to market themselves as an LA team, hence their stupid Official name of "the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" (and when "Los Angeles" is translated into English it sounds even dumber: "The The Angels Angels of Anaheim")
Lets see what happens if the Sacramento Kings move to Anaheim.
I hope the Maloofs do not move the Kings to Anaheim. They belong in Sacramento. The O.C. folks will never embrace the Kings. They can have the Lakers or the Clippers. I prefer the Kings to move back to Kansas City if Sacramento does not land a new arena in March.
Regarding the subject of the thread I think having a professional team in your city is a good thing. There is a degree of civic pride and it means that the city/market is capable economically, important enough and has the infrastructure in place to have one or more teams. Also, just the city being mentioned during a game or on ESPN is sort of like 'hits' on a website. Its free advertising for that city. IMO, teams should put the name of their city on their name instead of the state (e.g. Utah Jazz, Minnesota Twins, Colorado Rockies, Golden State Warriors).
IAlso, just the city being mentioned during a game or on ESPN is sort of like 'hits' on a website. Its free advertising for that city. IMO, teams should put the name of their city on their name instead of the state (e.g. Utah Jazz, Minnesota Twins, Colorado Rockies, Golden State Warriors).
-Cheers.
The Golden State Warriors have an interesting story. Originally, they were located in Philadelphia before relocating to San Francisco. They were known as the San Francisco Warriors from 1961-1971, playing games in both the Cow Palace in Daly City and the San Francisco Civic Auditorium(now the Bill Graham)--in addition to playing home games occasionally in San Jose and Oakland. When they moved to Oakland for most of their home games in 1971(along with playing some home games in San Diego) they took on the name, "Golden State" and dropped San Francisco. Apparently the year they won a championship in 1975, they ended up playing and winning the playoffs at the Cow Palace across the Bay instead of the Oakland Coliseum(there were other events scheduled there during the playoffs!). I believe though that the moniker of Golden State was an attempt to broaden their fan base throughout California--this was back when the recently relocated Lakers were the only other team in the state.
I think it will be interesting if and when the 49ers make their long-debated move to Santa Clara(which seems like it's only a matter of time), to see whether they'll keep the name San Francisco 49ers, despite possibly playing in the next door neighbor of San Jose(a larger city by population eager to have it's own name recognition increased). Probably will keep San Francisco as a moniker--what might get weird is if the Oakland Raiders decide to possibly to share the stadium ala the Jets/Giants. You could have both the Oakland Raiders and San Francisco 49ers technically playing in the same stadium in what's basically San Jose. At that case it will be interesting if both teams kind of keep their regional fanbases...
...Did I get that right? So East Rutherford, NJ (population 9,000) gets the credit for 3 teams, same as Boston and DC... Correct?...
No. This is not strictly about credit, although it does play a part. East Rutherford has THREE (3) Professional Sports teams playing within it's city limits. Does that say anything about the city and the 9,000 inhabitants? I think so.
And THAT is at the heart of this thread, I believe.
New York can't afford anymore space to build stadiums. It has spanned STATE LINES to build stadiums for teams to play under their name. Does that say anything about the "measure" of NYC? I think it does.
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.
) so Gnutella is in fact correct!
