Rank your city's sports teams by popularity

[edale]

Originally Posted by badrunner

One factor in MLB popularity is the lack of a salary cap, meaning that only big market teams can truly compete. The NFL is on the opposite side of the spectrum, it has the most parity of any league.

That's a good point. You do have small market success stories in the MLB-- the Kansas City Royals won a few years back, and of course St. Louis is always good. But in general, the deck is basically stacked against the small market teams, and I think that has led to some apathy amongst younger fans in these markets.

How can a team like the Cincinnati Reds, with a payroll of ~$122 million realistically compete with a team like the LA Dodgers, with their payroll of ~$285 million? Yet over in the NFL, its LA vs Cincinnati for the Super Bowl...can't blame fans in these small markets for making the switch to the NFL. MLB needs a salary cap.

[dchan]

Originally Posted by badrunner

The Knicks are as popular in NYC as the Lakers are in LA. It's crazy but it's true. I can't figure it out either.

Yep, it's basically like being in love in an abusive relationship. Not a great analogy, but I can't think of a better one. It's also an east coast sports fan trait, I think. West coasters tend to be more fair-weather, possibly due to their actual weather being more fair, sunny, and dry.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by badrunner

The Knicks are as popular in NYC as the Lakers are in LA. It's crazy but it's true. I can't figure it out either.

Thinking about the Knicks/Nets & Lakers/Clippers, I've got a question for the Angelenos here: how does the Clippers fanbase compare to the Lakers? Is it something separated by geographic lines? Or demographic, or is it just completely random? And are most fans of one "soft" supporters of the other, or are people rabid fans of only one or the other?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I just don't think the Knicks are as popular as you guys think they are. Their attendance and fan support have dropped off over the past few years. You've got lifelong fans basically disowning the Knicks.

Knicks tickets are the most expensive in the NBA, and the arena is basically permanently sold out. They're the most valuable NBA franchise, every year, despite not having a real franchise player since Ewing. Even when they were good they played plodding, choppy ball.

Again, you're conflating success on the court with popularity. The Knicks would be popular if they went winless.

[Steely Dan]

Going back to the '94 strike, the world series has been won by a team from a top 10 largest MSA/CSA every year except 3: cards '06, cards '11, and royals '15.

That's only 3 out of the last 27 world series won by a "small" market team.

That's not good.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Knicks tickets are the most expensive in the NBA, and the arena is basically permanently sold out. They're the most valuable NBA franchise, every year, despite not having a real franchise player since Ewing. Even when they were good they played plodding, choppy ball.

Again, you're conflating success on the court with popularity. The Knicks would be popular if they went winless.

I think there may be a distinction between tickets sold and actual attendance. The Knicks have not been top 10 in attendance by percentage since 2017.

The Yankees, on the other hand, are consistently in the top 10 in attendance by raw numbers and percentage, every year. They're filling in their stadium with double the amount of fans, with double the amount of home games per year.

I think it would be interesting to see TV and radio ratings though, to see which team gets more views/ears.

[dchan]

My bigger concern with the MLB is one of the main issues driving the lockdown: players are basically in perpetual "servitude" to the team that owns their draft rights until they're in their early 30s. By that time, most players are either out of the league or in the downslope of their athletic prime. So the first time a player is able to earn a contract at "market rate" is when they're no longer as good, athletic, nor durable as they once were.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Thinking about the Knicks/Nets & Lakers/Clippers, I've got a question for the Angelenos here: how does the Clippers fanbase compare to the Lakers? Is it something separated by geographic lines? Or demographic, or is it just completely random? And are most fans of one "soft" supporters of the other, or are people rabid fans of only one or the other?

For the Clippers, the marketing writes itself. They are everything that their crosstown rivals are not. Their branding is much better since Ballmer took over.

• Video Link

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Thinking about the Knicks/Nets & Lakers/Clippers, I've got a question for the Angelenos here: how does the Clippers fanbase compare to the Lakers? Is it something separated by geographic lines? Or demographic, or is it just completely random? And are most fans of one "soft" supporters of the other, or are people rabid fans of only one or the other?

The Clippers have plenty of fans who have stuck with the team pre and post Donald Sterling. But Los Angeles will forever be Laker town. The Clippers had their best chance of winning LA over during Lob City which was their best stretch. They have plenty of fans.

• Video Link

What I do hope with the Clippers is that when they move to Inglewood in a few years, they will carve a more South Los Angeles identity. Cater towards the Southbay/Long Beach area. They really need to carve their own LA identity. I compare the Lakers and Clippers to the Galaxy and LAFC of MLS. Very similar situations between those teams.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by homebucket

That was a long time ago. The Knicks have sucked for decades now.

Which hasn't dampened Knicks fandom all that much. You still see jerseys and Knicks 🞵🞵🞵🞵 everywhere. Before the Yankees won their first World Series in 1996 after almost a 20-year dry spell, the fandom was just as loyal as ever.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by JManc

Which hasn't dampened Knicks fandom all that much. You still see jerseys and Knicks 🞵🞵🞵🞵 everywhere. Before the Yankees won their first World Series in 1996 after almost a 20-year dry spell, the fandom was just as loyal as ever.

Again, the argument is not that the Knicks are not popular. It's that they're not as popular as the Yankees. I get that the fandom is somewhat split between the Yankees and Mets, and there's a huge gap between Knicks and Nets fandom, so if the Knicks do well, it's more of a mass NYC hysteria. But that hasn't happened in forever, so we're talking about a romanticized, hypothetical event.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Thinking about the Knicks/Nets & Lakers/Clippers, I've got a question for the Angelenos here: how does the Clippers fanbase compare to the Lakers? Is it something separated by geographic lines? Or demographic, or is it just completely random? And are most fans of one "soft" supporters of the other, or are people rabid fans of only one or the other?

While the Clippers have their fans (scattered over the city), the area is OVERWHELMINGLY Lakers fans. Its really hard to compete with, arguably the most successful franchise in sports and a franchise that has this much history AND a ridiculous number of great and all time great players.

All that being said, the Clippers still sold out every game for like a decade straight, are building a 2 billion dollar basketball palace and training center in Inglewood, have a great owner and are only gonna grow their fan base

[Acajack]

The Knicks should never have changed their name from Knickerbockers.

Imagine how awesome it would be if they were still called that.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Again, I don't understand this logic.

The Knicks are arguably the worst run NBA team with the worst owner. James Dolan is an imbecile. Yet the Knicks are huge locally and there's no NBA arena with a remotely comparable atmosphere.

Whether or not the owner is an idiot or the organization is poorly run has nothing to do with whether there's an intense fanbase. Washington is an NFL town, and loves its Redskins/Commanders.

Also, how is the stadium terrible? It's a newish stadium that's one of the biggest in the NFL. And it was recently renovated.

Intense fanbase? Is that what the kids call being #31 in attendance these days?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Intense fanbase? Is that what the kids call being #31 in attendance these days?

Attendance doesn't necessarily correlate with fan support. The Pistons had the highest NBA attendance for many, many years, yet Detroit was never an NBA town and support was apathetic. The Lions are the talk of Detroit, every year, but have poor attendance.

And Covid-era sports attendance figures are 🞵🞵🞵🞵, especially for somewhere like the DC area. I wouldn't even think about attending a sports event these past two years, and I'm basically a vax-denier and anti-masker relative to most folks around me. People afraid to go grocery shopping aren't going to a football game.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by edale

For Cincinnati, the Reds have to be number 1. The Reds are the only/one of the only? teams to always open at home, and Opening Day is essentially a holiday in the city. They have a big parade and tons of people take off work/school just to go to the parade and be downtown, even if they don't have tickets.

I think the Reds are fading in popularity in Cincinnati for several reasons, the main one being the decline of 700WLW. Podcasting, etc., has given people many options while driving and 700 hasn't been locally owned for over 20 years. The original programming is steadily eroding with I Heart Radio piping in syndicated shows overnight and on the weekends. They're paying the local hosts peanuts and so they all have other jobs.

I also think things started going downhill when they traded for Ken Griffey Jr. He was aloof and his heir, Joey Votto, is a similar mystery man. Compare them to "The Mayor" Sean Casey or any number of flamboyant Reds from the 90s like Dimitri Young or Deion Sanders. I also think the ongoing eccentric behavior of native son Pete Rose has continued to drag the franchise.

The Dusty Baker era was the high point for the Reds since 2000 (the reprieve from the Griffey/Votto boringness) - there were a few great players under him who held the public's attention - Chapman, Cueto, etc.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by edale

How can a team like the Cincinnati Reds, with a payroll of ~$122 million realistically compete with a team like the LA Dodgers, with their payroll of ~$285 million? Yet over in the NFL, its LA vs Cincinnati for the Super Bowl...can't blame fans in these small markets for making the switch to the NFL. MLB needs a salary cap.

Also - with a different shake of the dice, we could have had a Cincinnati-Green Bay Super Bowl, which would have been a clash of small market teams.

In the AFC, tiny Buffalo could have made it as well.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I just don't think the Knicks are as popular as you guys think they are. Their attendance and fan support have dropped off over the past few years. You've got lifelong fans basically disowning the Knicks.

Your biggest moment since the 90s was Linsanity, and you haven't produced any notable home grown stars since Ewing.

The Knicks are definitely popular, but the Yankees are more popular.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Again, the argument is not that the Knicks are not popular. It's that they're not as popular as the Yankees. I get that the fandom is somewhat split between the Yankees and Mets, and there's a huge gap between Knicks and Nets fandom, so if the Knicks do well, it's more of a mass NYC hysteria. But that hasn't happened in forever, so we're talking about a romanticized, hypothetical event.

I don't think anyone is disputing that; the Yankees tie with the Cowgirls as the most popular team in the US and among the top in the world but despite poor team performance, the Knicks are still very popular and still among the most popular sports franchises. Being New York's team certainly helps with the image. Likewise with the LA Lakers which are also globally popular.

Here, the Texans absolutely 🞵🞵🞵🞵 and their front office 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 even more but they still have a rabid loyal following. Even despite the Astros being a solid team now, the Texans are still probably more popular.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JManc

I don't think anyone is disputing that; the Yankees tie with the Cowgirls as the most popular team in the US and among the top in the world but despite poor team performance, the Knicks are still very popular and still among the most popular sports franchises. Being New York's team certainly helps with the image. Likewise with the LA Lakers which are also globally popular.

Here, the Texans absolutely 🞵🞵🞵🞵 and their front office 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 even more but they still have a rabid loyal following. Even despite the Astros being a solid team now, the Texans are still probably more popular.

Viewed from outside the US, I am pretty sure the Lakers are way ahead of any other team as the most popular NBA team worldwide. I am guessing that a distant second might be the Bulls due to residual glory from the Michael Jordan era. The Knicks may be super popular in the NYC area but internationally they're probably no bigger a deal than the Charlotte Hornets or the Utah Jazz.

The other US sports teams that are really popular worldwide would be the Cowboys and the Red Sox. The Patriots have probably joined them in recent years.