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.
Austin has been the darling of the media etc as a major up and comer for years and has attracted
major tech investment without a pro team.
I dont think theres any evidence pro sports has a major effect on a citys standing or prosperity. I think its more typically the case that the movers and shakers of “boom towns” eventually feel the need to showcase their citys arrival as a “big city” by getting a sports team. Its more a status symbol for cities than a catalyst for city growth.
St. Louis winning an NFL, MLB (twice), and (recently) NHL championship within the past 20 years elevates its status as a desirable place to live - especially as a 2nd tier city.
Elaborate? Because I'm not understanding that talking point.
I think many factors go into being the best sports town. Winning is just one factor. Attendance, history, how many local athletes they produce, programs, colleges, events, etc. should also play a role.
Boston has a shoddy attendance history without the winning. (Patriots, Bruins, Celtics). That's indisputable fact. I would expect more from a place deemed "best".
Actually I based 'best sports city' on actual rankngs where no ranking lists Boston lower than #2. I dont state things on CD without propper sources to back it up.
And I dont know about that last comment. The Celtics won 12/13 championships in the 50s and 60s. The Bruins came atop in the 70s, with the Celtics rising again in the 80s. I really would only say the 90s were a dry decade for Boston sports. Much similar to 2010s NY
Last edited by masssachoicetts; 12-02-2019 at 01:58 PM..
You could argue that the Cubs legacy of losing was a bigger tourist draw than if they had been a winning team.
In San Diego, the dominant way of thinking is that the city is better off without pro sports and "outsmarted the system" by being a 3.4 million metro with only one team.
The big question is are pro sports helping cities like Jacksonville and OKC.
We live in an era of unprecedented suburbia where we have 'boom towns" with no train station or pro sports pushing 1 million city population. Do pro sports even matter in these places? I guess we're getting our answer with OKC and Jax.
See, in cities like NYC, L.A., Boston, Chicago, Florida, San Fran, San Diego it doesn't matter whether their teams are successful or not. In the minds of most folks across the nation, "If your teams lose, you still have the beach, Times Square, Hollywood, beautiful people, Magnificent Mile, Sears Tower, Silicon Valley, clubs, etc."
But, if you're Cleveland (where I'm from), Detroit, Buffalo or any Great Lakes city, when your team wins "It's still __________" but if the team(s) lose, "You're just a loser, your city is nothing and your city has nothing." Only city that most folks don't do that to is Pittsburgh because it's the media's poster child for Rust Belt revitalization. Lol! . JK.
Last edited by QCongress83216; 12-02-2019 at 02:46 PM..
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,550,878 times
Reputation: 6685
2010’s were not dry for NY. The 2011 NY Giants were Super Bowl Champs (beat Pats on Feb 5, 2012).
Quote:
Originally Posted by masssachoicetts
Actually I based 'best sports city' on actual rankngs where no ranking lists Boston lower than #2. I dont state things on CD without propper sources to back it up.
And I dont know about that last comment. The Celtics won 12/13 championships in the 50s and 60s. The Bruins came atop in the 70s, with the Celtics rising again in the 80s. I really would only say the 90s were a dry decade for Boston sports. Much similar to 2010s NY
Last edited by elchevere; 12-02-2019 at 02:49 PM..
DC's dry spell lasted from 1991-2017 lmao. AND we beat a known cheating team in the World Series. Nothing felt sweeter than that.
Congrats to the Nationals; I'm happy that they won, but D.C. didn't go through a dry spell. Try going through a 52-year dry spell like Cleveland at least the Redskins had championships in the '80s. Plus, even without the titles people never looked at D.C. any less, it's still a city of influence, importance and wealth. And, it's still beloved all over the world.
Congrats to the Nationals; I'm happy that they won, but D.C. didn't go through a dry spell. Try going through a 52-year dry spell like Cleveland at least the Redskins had championships in the '80s.
I'm happy Rendon, Strasburg, Scherzer and Sanchez finally got one. And I'm happier that Bryce Harper had no part of it, since I always thought he was overrated as hell.
I was born in 1989, so it felt like a long time given my life span Definitely out of all the Northeastern cities, DC is the most "laggard" in terms of championships.
I still want Snyder to sell the Skins. I lowkey cheer for the Ravens to see what a competently run organization is like. As a Cleveland sports fan, you know all about terrible ownership.
Quote:
Plus, even without the titles people never looked at D.C. any less, it's still a city of influence, importance and wealth. And, it's still beloved all over the world.
I wouldn't go far to say "beloved". Plus this city is so transient, that it feels like a road game for the home team whenever any DC sports team plays a big name team (namely those from NY/BOS/CHI).
Whenever DC isn't involved, I do always cheer for the small market team to win. The big cities don't really need the championships. The smaller media markets really could use the boost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPFL121
Some of you should read comments on Barstool. All it is is sports fans trashing the other fans cities (Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc.) and everyone's favorite stereotypes come out to play.
Or reddit. In some ways, maybe the West Coast sports fan IS right. Some of us do take this stuff too seriously and should really treat professional sports as more of an entertainment option instead of some civic pride thing because most of it really does depend on the owners of the team wanting to spend money or care. Or at least, not constantly threaten cities with relocation. That part is annoying.
I'm happy Rendon, Strasburg, Scherzer and Sanchez finally got one. And I'm happier that Bryce Harper had no part of it, since I always thought he was overrated as hell.
I was born in 1989, so it felt like a long time given my life span Definitely out of all the Northeastern cities, DC is the most "laggard" in terms of championships.
I still want Snyder to sell the Skins. I lowkey cheer for the Ravens to see what a competently run organization is like. As a Cleveland sports fan, you know all about terrible ownership.
I wouldn't go far to say "beloved". Plus this city is so transient, that it feels like a road game for the home team whenever any DC sports team plays a big name team (namely those from NY/BOS/CHI).
Whenever DC isn't involved, I do always cheer for the small market team to win. The big cities don't really need the championships. The smaller media markets really could use the boost.
Or reddit. In some ways, maybe the West Coast sports fan IS right. Some of us do take this stuff too seriously and should really treat professional sports as more of an entertainment option instead of some civic pride thing because most of it really does depend on the owners of the team wanting to spend money or care. Or at least, not constantly threaten cities with relocation. That part is annoying.
The Haslams (Browns owners) even make Synder look like respectable owners. I hope the Redskins get it together and get Haskins some help (I'm an Ohio State fan). And, I meant to say that D.C. is beloved by the public nationally and internationally not by the residents themselves. I've heard a lot about how transient D.C. is. Also, it seems when smaller market teams win championships they don't get the boost, it seems like they either get scorned or ignored by the media unless it's certain cites like Pittsburgh or Baltimore. When the Cavs won the NBA title in 2016, certain groups of folks nationally hated the fact that Cleveland won it instead of Golden State.
Some West Coast sports fans take sports too seriously just like fans do on the Coasts, Midwest and South. Talk to 49ers fans, Dodgers fans or Lakers fans; some of them definitely feel a civic pride about those teams out there. Now, the Warriors always felt more bandwagon when they were doing their thing. It seemed like that all of Silicon Valley, celebs and affluent people went to the games just because it was the "in" thing to do and no one really cared or loved the team.
The Haslams (Browns owners) even make Synder look like respectable owners. I hope the Redskins get it together and get Haskins some help (I'm an Ohio State fan).
At least the Haslams don't do everything they can to alienate Browns fans. I don't even think he's the worst owner in Cleveland - that goes to Dan Gilbert. He sort of redeemed himself with the 2nd LeBron stint, but the whole Kyrie fiasco and the first LeBron stint left a lot to be desired. Not to mention the owners of the Tribe are so cheap, they are unwilling to pay Lindor, even though he's clearly a generational talent. Shame.
I thought the Lerner's were cheap too, but they're willing to spend on pitching. Snyder though, the worst. DC used to be a hardcore Skins town but he sucked the enthusiasm out of us.
Also, it seems when smaller market teams win championships they don't get the boost, it seems like they either get scorned or ignored by the media unless it's certain cites like Pittsburgh or Baltimore. When the Cavs won the NBA title in 2016, certain groups of folks nationally hated the fact that Cleveland won it instead of Golden State.
Yeah the talking heads really hate small market teams winning. That's why I stopped watching all of that. Undisputed can be funny with Skip and Shannon, but the rest of them are pure garbage. Cowherd is the worst IMO.
Quote:
Some West Coast sports fans take sports too seriously just like fans do on the Coasts, Midwest and South. Talk to 49ers fans, Dodgers fans or Lakers fans; some of them definitely feel a civic pride about those teams out there. Now, the Warriors always felt more bandwagon when they were doing their thing. It seemed like that all of Silicon Valley, celebs and affluent people went to the games just because it was the "in" thing to do and no one really cared or loved the team.
You're probably right. I can't generalize about it since I've never lived there. I will say though: San Diego has the weakest home field advantage of all time. Even when they had the Chargers, the Chargers and Padres home games were always full of opposing teams fans. The combination of the military/smaller population/massive transplants/constant amount of tourists has them always full of opposing team fans. Fitting that the Chargers and Clippers move to LA, and have the same problem there
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.
. JK.
Definitely out of all the Northeastern cities, DC is the most "laggard" in terms of championships. 
