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.
I'm surprised that Boston has even 2 votes. Outside of a few Boston College fanatics, no one cares about college football in Boston.
The OP didn't pick logical cities, they opted for "sexy" cities instead. Tho that shouldn't suprise anyone as there are more than a few posters who see the country through the prism of about 8 places.
Yea but I thought the idea of the thread was talking about the blend of team support...not necessarily supporting teams play in that particular city. If we're going solely by teams that play in the city, then yea I guess you could say LA since it's the only city with two major teams in the city.
However, when comparing cities with the best blends of teams & overall passion for the sport, there's no question that Atlanta is the right call. Atlanta's got a huge blend of teams from the SEC & ACC. You'll get fans from Georgia, Georgia Tech, Auburn, Clemson, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, among several others. It's the capital of college football in this country, no doubt.
A surprising #2 in my opinion is Washington DC. I wasn't expecting it, but ran into tons of B1G fans at bars there...especially Penn State and Ohio State.
Yeah but DC doesn't care about college football like that. Dallas would be 2nd because they have tons of Big 12, BIG,SEC fans as well. Arkansas and LSU fans are all over DFW. The Terrapins are only popular when it comes to basketball and VA Tech is so far away from here that it barely registers.
Yeah but DC doesn't care about college football like that. Dallas would be 2nd because they have tons of Big 12, BIG,SEC fans as well. Arkansas and LSU fans are all over DFW. The Terrapins are only popular when it comes to basketball and VA Tech is so far away from here that it barely registers.
True...I've never been to DFW but I would imagine it's a big college football town.
The OP didn't pick logical cities, they opted for "sexy" cities instead. Tho that shouldn't suprise anyone as there are more than a few posters who see the country through the prism of about 8 places.
True. If these were at all a serious thread, the city choices would be more like Columbus, Austin, Ann Arbor, Baton Rouge, etc. Asking what major large city is best for college football is a dumb question, because none of them really have college football in their dna like some of the more mid sized cities do.
True. If these were at all a serious thread, the city choices would be more like Columbus, Austin, Ann Arbor, Baton Rouge, etc. Asking what major large city is best for college football is a dumb question, because none of them really have college football in their dna like some of the more mid sized cities do.
I wouldn't say NONE, but yes, it would be a better list if it were more mid-sized cities (even though Austin and Columbus are both two top 20 largest cities) because they tend to not have any major pro sports teams to compete with.
UCLA is in the conversation and always will be. They do fill their stadium pretty consistently, which is pretty amazing considering how rough the commute to Pasadena from LA can actually be. If UCLA's stadium was near or around westwood, they would always sell out.
That's true, most of the city doesn't care about gameday, but the percentage that does is still pretty massive.
then what about a place like Happy Valley in the middle of no where and gets 110K every weekend
I wouldn't say NONE, but yes, it would be a better list if it were more mid-sized cities (even though Austin and Columbus are both two top 20 largest cities) because they tend to not have any major pro sports teams to compete with.
Columbus and Austin have massive borders which give the illusion of largeness. The Columbus metro area of 2 million is nothing compared to Boston at 4.5 million, even though The city population is 100,000 more than Boston. Keep in mind, a lot of the major cities have very small borders and are very dense, whereas Austin and Columbus are in reality much much less populated than any of the cities on the list. "Mid sized" is a much more accurate term for such places.
And I still disagree. Atlanta might have the biggest college football following, but it still doesn't compare to Columbus or Tuscaloosa even.
Columbus and Austin have massive borders which give the illusion of largeness. The Columbus metro area of 2 million is nothing compared to Boston at 4.5 million, even though The city population is 100,000 more than Boston. Keep in mind, a lot of the major cities have very small borders and are very dense, whereas Austin and Columbus are in reality much much less populated than any of the cities on the list. "Mid sized" is a much more accurate term for such places.
You're going to have to be more specific.
You didn't say "metro", just "city". So one will most likely assume you're just talking about the city itself.
You didn't say "metro", just "city". So one will most likely assume you're just talking about the city itself.
It's ridiculous to view things by city proper, for stuff like this. It's just not the same thing. I figured everyone would already be on the same page here... You can live .3 miles from downtown Boston and not live in Boston. It would be really ludicrous to claim that doesn't count. Whereas you could live 15 miles from downtown Austin and still live in Austin. Arbitrary lines drawn long ago and maintained pointless politics dont tell you much.
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.