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.
What about Vegas, Austin, Honolulu, Norfolk/Virginia Beach?
Vegas is a special case due to political/legal issues and being tourist driven, doesn't have as much of an opportunity to build up a loyal fanbase.
Honolulu is obvious due to logistical reasons, and the city/metro itself is really just mid-sized.
Austin is only the fourth largest city in Texas and most of the development is recent compared to the three primary Triangle cities. It generally roots for the Rangers for MLB, the Cowboys for the NFL, Spurs for the NBA, and Stars (obviously being the only NHL team in Texas) for the NHL. I view it in a similar vein to other mid-sized cities like Omaha, Boise, Tuscon, Albuquerque, Virginia's Hampton Roads, Orlando, Tulsa, Rochester, North Carolina's Triad, and Providence that tend to either be too close to a major city that has the pro sports, is too transient like Hampton Roads, or just falls a bit too short in terms of having a large enough market to support.
However, the biggest flaw to this is Los Angeles, which lacks an NFL team. Sure, like NY its the only metro with two teams in MLB, NHL, and the NBA and did had two NFL teams at one point. To address this I'd say if a city had a pro sports team at some point in its history for at least a decade or so (outside of a league's early years, so that would discount small cities such as Troy, NY), it counts toward its relative city size.
Naturally, NYC and LA will be the biggest being the only two cities with multiple teams in each major sports league at one point. Chicago and the Bay Area are next for having multiple teams in MLB and are viewed generally as the third and fourth most important cities overall in the media. Then comes Philadelphia, DC, Atlanta (they had an NHL team for 12 years), Boston, Dallas, Detroit, Phoenix, Denver, and Miami, nice "Beta-level cities" that are nationally important with significant global influences and still in the nation's Top 15. Minneapolis is also a four-sports metro, but is generally seen as a notch lower due to its location.
A tier down comes three-team cities: Baltimore (they had the Bullets (now Wizards) for a decade), Cleveland, Seattle, St. Louis, Kansas City (they had an NBA team for over a decade), Tampa, San Diego (they had both the Rockets and the Clippers), Cincinnati (they had an NBA team in the late '50s-early '70s), and Pittsburgh. Houston also falls into the three-team city class but is an exception in that despite never having an NHL team, it easily fits in with the next tier of cities listed above, though it lacks the cultural heritage that most of those cities provide.
A notch down are the two-team cities: Milwaulkee, Buffalo, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Charlotte, and Nashville. It's a small list, but these are solid mid-sized cities that are mostly known nationally.
Finally you have the single-team cities: Portland, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City, Memphis, Jacksonville, Orlando, Raleigh, Columbus, Hartford, San Antonio (a bit low but not by much IMO), Sacramento, and Green Bay. Except for the last one, these are subregional centers that are still mid-sized (except for Green Bay) like the two-team cities, but perhaps a step down.
Going by the pro sports metric, you're still missing Albuquerque, El Paso, Birmingham, Toledo, Austin (though its recently grown as someone said, it's still big), and certainly some others as well.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,132 posts, read 7,575,946 times
Reputation: 5796
I would also say another indicator/ gauge could be MLS, and or WNBA? Now I realize some small markets like Hartford and Tulsa have WNBA etc but for comparison of the larger markets it's more of an indicator of sports fan base.
Vegas is a special case due to political/legal issues and being tourist driven, doesn't have as much of an opportunity to build up a loyal fanbase.
Honolulu is obvious due to logistical reasons, and the city/metro itself is really just mid-sized.
Austin is only the fourth largest city in Texas and most of the development is recent compared to the three primary Triangle cities. It generally roots for the Rangers for MLB, the Cowboys for the NFL, Spurs for the NBA, and Stars (obviously being the only NHL team in Texas) for the NHL. I view it in a similar vein to other mid-sized cities like Omaha, Boise, Tuscon, Albuquerque, Virginia's Hampton Roads, Orlando, Tulsa, Rochester, North Carolina's Triad, and Providence that tend to either be too close to a major city that has the pro sports, is too transient like Hampton Roads, or just falls a bit too short in terms of having a large enough market to support.
However, the biggest flaw to this is Los Angeles, which lacks an NFL team. Sure, like NY its the only metro with two teams in MLB, NHL, and the NBA and did had two NFL teams at one point. To address this I'd say if a city had a pro sports team at some point in its history for at least a decade or so (outside of a league's early years, so that would discount small cities such as Troy, NY), it counts toward its relative city size.
Naturally, NYC and LA will be the biggest being the only two cities with multiple teams in each major sports league at one point. Chicago and the Bay Area are next for having multiple teams in MLB and are viewed generally as the third and fourth most important cities overall in the media. Then comes Philadelphia, DC, Atlanta (they had an NHL team for 12 years), Boston, Dallas, Detroit, Phoenix, Denver, and Miami, nice "Beta-level cities" that are nationally important with significant global influences and still in the nation's Top 15. Minneapolis is also a four-sports metro, but is generally seen as a notch lower due to its location.
A tier down comes three-team cities: Baltimore (they had the Bullets (now Wizards) for a decade), Cleveland, Seattle, St. Louis, Kansas City (they had an NBA team for over a decade), Tampa, San Diego (they had both the Rockets and the Clippers), Cincinnati (they had an NBA team in the late '50s-early '70s), and Pittsburgh. Houston also falls into the three-team city class but is an exception in that despite never having an NHL team, it easily fits in with the next tier of cities listed above, though it lacks the cultural heritage that most of those cities provide.
A notch down are the two-team cities: Milwaulkee, Buffalo, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Charlotte, and Nashville. It's a small list, but these are solid mid-sized cities that are mostly known nationally.
Finally you have the single-team cities: Portland, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City, Memphis, Jacksonville, Orlando, Raleigh, Columbus, Hartford, San Antonio (a bit low but not by much IMO), Sacramento, and Green Bay. Except for the last one, these are subregional centers that are still mid-sized (except for Green Bay) like the two-team cities, but perhaps a step down.
You realize the serious bias with this statement, right? I could EASILY discount any of the higher-rated cities you listed because of their location or some other characteristic I thought they were lacking in, but then again that would only be my opinion and you were on the verge of being objective. Atlanta doesn't have 4 teams anymore, for starters (although I see you listed that as some type of disclaimer).
For me, I gauge a city as "major" by having at least one pro sports team in NHL, NBA, NFL, or MLB.
The only exception is Green Bay. But otherwise, every other city with a pro team is large or major to me.
In terms of the top 50 MSAs the only telling omissions beyond Las Vegas for obvious reasons are Virginia Beach/Norfolk at #37, Louisville at #43, Richmond at #44 and Birmingham at #49. Providence at #38 and Hartford at #46 are too close to Boston. Virginia Beach/Norfolk is seen as too transient with few loyalties due to the massive military presence in the area. Richmond's proximity to DC's long established sports teams is probably a detriment. I think Louisville is seen as too close to Cincinnati's Bengals and Reds, and college basketball loyalties with U of Louisville and U of Kentucky too much to overcome for the NBA and the NHL not even a blip on the radar. The only one that stands a chance in my opinion of the group is Birmingham though SEC football probably hinders NFL possibilities, the NBA or NHL is unlikely due to the demographics at large leaving MLB which is clearly not in expansion mode for some reason.
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.
