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.
There are a myriad of flaws with that methodology for ranking "best sports cities". For one, it makes far more sense to use metro area population as opposed to just municipal boundary population (as if fans only come from that one central city and none from adjacent). Also, I think the vast majority would agree that number of teams to root for is a big factor in what is a better sports city. A metro with 5 or 6 major professional sports teams is far better than one with only one. Seating capacity and variation in such (as well as number of home games) varies widely by sport. Baseball hosts 82 home games per season (not counting any playoff games) in stadiums with usually around 40,000+ capacity. NFL only has 8 games per season, so despite higher stadium capacities the methodology is going to skew far more in favor of cities with MLB teams. I would say attendance average as a % of capacity is a far better indicator that both takes into account differences in types of sports/facilities and also winning percentage, since you could expect a lot more full stadiums with winning teams, and doesn't having winning teams make for a better sports town?
There are a myriad of flaws with that methodology for ranking "best sports cities". For one, it makes far more sense to use metro area population as opposed to just municipal boundary population (as if fans only come from that one central city and none from adjacent). Also, I think the vast majority would agree that number of teams to root for is a big factor in what is a better sports city. A metro with 5 or 6 major professional sports teams is far better than one with only one. Seating capacity and variation in such (as well as number of home games) varies widely by sport. Baseball hosts 82 home games per season (not counting any playoff games) in stadiums with usually around 40,000+ capacity. NFL only has 8 games per season, so despite higher stadium capacities the methodology is going to skew far more in favor of cities with MLB teams. I would say attendance average as a % of capacity is a far better indicator that both takes into account differences in types of sports/facilities and also winning percentage, since you could expect a lot more full stadiums with winning teams, and doesn't having winning teams make for a better sports town?
I agree. While Orlando proper does only have ~300,000 people in its city boundaries, the metro area (in which I live) has over 2.5 million. The vast majority of fans who attend the NBA and MLS games do not live within city limits.
Interesting list, although its nothing to do with the list per se I wonder just out of interest what the total sporting attendance would be for London - it must be huge.
There are a myriad of flaws with that methodology for ranking "best sports cities". For one, it makes far more sense to use metro area population as opposed to just municipal boundary population (as if fans only come from that one central city and none from adjacent). Also, I think the vast majority would agree that number of teams to root for is a big factor in what is a better sports city. A metro with 5 or 6 major professional sports teams is far better than one with only one. Seating capacity and variation in such (as well as number of home games) varies widely by sport. Baseball hosts 82 home games per season (not counting any playoff games) in stadiums with usually around 40,000+ capacity. NFL only has 8 games per season, so despite higher stadium capacities the methodology is going to skew far more in favor of cities with MLB teams. I would say attendance average as a % of capacity is a far better indicator that both takes into account differences in types of sports/facilities and also winning percentage, since you could expect a lot more full stadiums with winning teams, and doesn't having winning teams make for a better sports town?
Yea, the list is pretty stupid. But hey, some people in Missouri figured out how to make a list that puts St Louis at number 1, so go figure!
The Dolphins don't play in Miami, but in Miami Gardens. The Florida Panthers are in Coral Springs. The only pro team that plays IN Miami are the Heat.
But yet this list includes ALL of those teams, but not all of the population, which is 6M.
The Dolphins don't play in Miami, but in Miami Gardens. The Florida Panthers are in Coral Springs. The only pro team that plays IN Miami are the Heat.
But yet this list includes ALL of those teams, but not all of the population, which is 6M.
Similar with D.C. They're only using DC population, yet the attendance pool is definitely also from Maryland and Northern Virginia. Probably even Baltimore, which is also likely to get folks from the D.C. metro as well.
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.
