Rank your city's sports teams by popularity

[edale]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

expanding on the colts being in the AFC south, if we disregarded historical rivalries altogether and were to realign the divisions based purely on geography, the following 3 AFC teams would do a 3-way switch.

colts - from AFC south to AFC north

ravens - from AFC North to AFC east

dophins - from AFC east to AFC south.

that would make those three divisions make a ton more regional sense.

the AFC west is already as geographically cohesive as it can get.

Pittsburgh and Cleveland are the center of the AFC North, with Cincy and Baltimore being the west and east poles of the division. I think it makes sense to keep them together rather than adding Indy. Pittsburgh is closer to Baltimore than it is to Indy. Cleveland isn't much closer to Indy than Batimore (just about an hour). Plus, I like that the grouping of the AFC North cities are all somewhat gritty, rust-belty towns. Indianapolis, despite being close to Cincy, feels totally different. I think it almost fits better with Nashville than any of the AFC North teams.

[Steely Dan]

^ i understand that you like the way the AFC north is currently aligned.

i would guess that most fans of those teams do.

my point was purely geographical and hypothetical.

IF we were going to reshuffle the AFC to have its divisions make more geographic sense (like the NFC's divisions, sans cowboys), the ravens would move to the east, the dolphins to the south, and the colts to the north.


this whole tangent got started because someone said something like "ha ha, the colts are so lame, they don't even have any regional rivals".

and i was just like "uhhhh, no shit. none of other NFL teams in their region play in their division. the AFC has fairly poor geographical alignment for 3 of its divisions."

IF we did reshuffle the AFC as i outlined above, the colts would eventually start developing regional rivalries with the bengals and browns.

not that i think that's going to happen.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by edale

...and the dozens of Rams fans got to feel happy about that. Happy for them

I'd rather a dozen fans be happy about a Super Bowl win than 5,000 fans throwing a parade celebrating the Bengals being 0 and life at anything.

[edale]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

I'd rather a dozen fans be happy about a Super Bowl win than 5,000 fans throwing a parade celebrating the Bengals being 0 and life at anything.

ooh sick burn!

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I do have some negative criticisms about our fan base:

1) Fucking beach balls. I will never understand. Especially during the playoffs.

Last time I went there were multiple beach ball delays and a giant inflatable killer whale in the crowd

[badrunner]

Just to drive home the point that the Rams are still a distant 3rd place in LA, HBO drops this trailer during the Super Bowl.

This show looks promising. It's made by the same guy that made The Big Short and Don't Look Up.

• Video Link

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I would not be surprised the major demographic groups would rank popularity of teams in their hometown differently, since they may participate in the sports differently. It would be interesting, for example, to see if Hispanics rank baseball and soccer the highest, since many Hispanics play those sports, and they are well represented. I would be curious how the large Asian communities rank the sports in places like LA and SF, as they are very diverse. Also, since sports games are so expensive, who attends is not always representative of all who follows...

For Asians in LA, id guess that its...

1) Lakers

Big gap

2) Dodgers
3) Angels
4) Clippers


Dont think hockey or football really move the needle from what i can tell

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I would not be surprised the major demographic groups would rank popularity of teams in their hometown differently, since they may participate in the sports differently. It would be interesting, for example, to see if Hispanics rank baseball and soccer the highest, since many Hispanics play those sports, and they are well represented. I would be curious how the large Asian communities rank the sports in places like LA and SF, as they are very diverse. Also, since sports games are so expensive, who attends is not always representative of all who follows...

In SF, the rankings don't really change when you consider the AAPI community vs the total population, although perhaps the Warriors move up a little bit closer to the 49ers.

The 49ers are still at the top, followed by the Warriors and Giants. Asians are well represented at each of the venues also.

[KDD]

In regards to Philly, I don't understand the point about the African American population. Yeah, they generally follow basketball more than hockey. That isn't news. But on aggregate, you could make the argue for either being #2. Its not like anyone here was posting and thinking "well, here are the sports me and white friends watch so it must be true for everyone". No, I doubt that. I think you can still still make the argument that Flyers over Sixers with everyone taken into account (though I wouldn't make that argument, reasonable people can disagree).

I would rank the sixers over the flyers, especially true at this point in time. In many years the Flyers draw more fans but the NHL has never been second fiddle to the NBA in terms of in game attendance. Its everywhere else where it lags. Anecdotally for instance, even when the Sixers were awful they probably accounted for 2x the airtime as the Flyers on sports talk radio.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ his point seemed fairly self-evident to me:

the phillies might be #2 among white philly sports fans, but the sixers are #2 among black philly sports fans.

then let a black sports fan come along and say that. this was just an opinion poll. the implication in bringing race into this is that because my list reflected a white sports fan's, it must be invalid. then some white knight (pun intended) had to come in on his white horse and point out that it might be different for black people, and that that is what we must be paying attention to.
it says more about the whiteness of this board than of the Philly sports fan that some guilt-ridden white guy has to come in and stand up for the oppressed black fan who might have a different opinion than mine.

[L41A]

In Atlanta, I wouldn't disagree that MLB (the Braves) are the most popular of the (MLB, NBA, NFL) - especially now. But if you are combining sport leagues and put NCAAF (or college football) in the mix for metros with MLB, NBA, NFL teams - college football would be #1 in popularity in Atlanta. Not only because of Georgia Tech, Georgia being in the CSA but because of the rabid fanbases and alumni from Auburn, Clemson, Alabama, FSU, etc in metro Atlanta along HBCU alumni football culture.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

if you combine the cubs and sox together, baseball overall might still be #2 in chicago ahead of the bulls (the bears are obviously #1).

but if you split the baseball teams, i think the bulls easily take the #2 spot over the cubs because half of the metro area fucking HATES the cubs.

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

I'd say the without a doubt cities are:

Boston
New York
Philadelphia
Washington, DC
Chicago
Minneapolis
Atlanta
St Louis

I think LA and SF lean MLB, but it's close.

Originally Posted by homebucket

I think basketball is definitely overtaking baseball in popularity. There's probably only a handful of cities that have both NBA and MLB teams where the MLB team is more popular. NBA arenas also have more of an excited, party atmosphere whereas MLB is more laidback and chill, which isn't surprising given the different pace of the sports.

[westak]

As a black sports fan my experience has been that Black sports fans follow Football and Basketball(from high school up) by and large, followed by black indviduals who may excell in a sport that is not traditionally played by black atheletes. I've been going to the barbershop essentially my entire life and I can never remember Baseball being a topic of debate, let alone Hockey. It's always interesting to see what sports are most popular in various communities and how that shakes out in a community at large.

[KDD]

Originally Posted by westak

As a black sports fan my experience has been that Black sports fans follow Football and Basketball(from high school up) by and large, followed by black indviduals who may excell in a sport that is not traditionally played by black atheletes. I've been going to the barbershop essentially my entire life and I can never remember Baseball being a topic of debate, let alone Hockey. It's always interesting to see what sports are most popular in various communities and how that shakes out in a community at large.

I wondered what happened with baseball, because that wasn't always the case. MLB has many Afro Latinos but the number of African American players is a fraction of what it once was.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I have talked to a few Bengals fans who made the trip to the Super Bowl. By all accounts, there were more Bengals fans than Rams fans in the building. What's more, Rams fans don't even have established songs/cheers.

The Bengals have 10+ recorded songs dating back to the 1968 polka-ish touchdown song that was written by Paul Brown's next-door neighbor and leader of the "Bird Band" that played under a tent in the end zone until the late 1980s. They still play this polka thing over the PA at Paul Brown Stadium.

I watched the game outdoors in snow flurries in Cincinnati in a crowd of about 5,000 people. It was absolutely hilarious when the crowd booed the aerial shot of the Pacific coastline (Torrance, maybe?) they broadcast right before (or maybe during) the National Anthem. It was somehow the absolutely core LA stereotype that they didn't show the stadium or downtown LA to represent the city but rather a rocky coastline and beach.

Yawn. Reading between the lines: "LA doesn't deserve a Super Bowl championship."

Yet, the Rams were in LA 20+ years before Cincinnati even had a team, and they mostly drew well in terms of attendance. If your argument is that the great attendance can be attributed to fans of other teams, note that they drew their largest seasonal crowd in 1958 (84,000... compared to the league average of 45,000). That predates the very existence of the Cowboys and Patriots (let alone their eventual dynasties) and the dominance of the Steelers and 49ers in the 70s and 80s. Commercial air travel was also in its infancy then, so fans from other parts of the country wouldn't fly in for the weekend just to watch a football game.

So, LA doesn't deserve an NFL team because it can't support one... yet it had one and did so long before most of the whiners were even alive. 84,000 in 1958... minus the Cowboys, nobody averages that large a crowd over a season these days.

"What's more," the Bengals averaged 47,000 fans as recently as the 2019 season... 72% stadium capacity. Ouch. They must've been saving up for Super Bowl LVI, only to go home disappointed.


(larger); Bring Back the Los Angeles Rams

[badrunner]

To be fair the Rams played in the Coliseum while most NFL stadiums of that era were tiny. Lambeau Field for example only had a capacity of 32,500 in 1958. College football was bigger.

[Quixote]

Since people like to choose the most unflattering angles, it's only fair that we show the most flattering:


https://twitter.com/sirgreasypanda9/status/1494749240366538752/photo/1

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by badrunner

To be fair the Rams played in the Coliseum while most NFL stadiums of that era were tiny. Lambeau Field for example only had a capacity of 32,500 in 1958. College football was bigger.

Context! It'd be nice if it worked both ways.

[Quixote]

Let me show you how easy it is to throw shade without context...

Patriots' most recent SB victory parade (over the Rams):

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by westak

As a black sports fan my experience has been that Black sports fans follow Football and Basketball(from high school up) by and large, followed by black indviduals who may excell in a sport that is not traditionally played by black atheletes. I've been going to the barbershop essentially my entire life and I can never remember Baseball being a topic of debate, let alone Hockey. It's always interesting to see what sports are most popular in various communities and how that shakes out in a community at large.

I would tend to disagree. From the NYC area, plenty of blacks follow the Yankees and even the Mets. I would also think the same in the other big cities. They may not follow them as much as basketball or football, but baseball teams are followed. Though, the following may have decreased as less and less blacks play on the MLB teams. One website says that the number of black players has declined from 27% in the 1970s to around 8-9% today.
https://www.1204yx.com/what-percentage-of-baseball-players-are-black/

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by badrunner

To be fair the Rams played in the Coliseum while most NFL stadiums of that era were tiny. Lambeau Field for example only had a capacity of 32,500 in 1958. College football was bigger.

yeah, the bears played at wrigely field for their first 50 seasons up until 1970 (when they moved downtown to the MUCH bigger soldier field), which had a capacity of only 46,000 for football games, thanks to a large temporary grand stand built on the east side of the stadium for football season.

this shoehorned arrangement was viewed as a perfectly acceptable venue for NFL football for the first half of the league's existence.


source: https://www.stadiumsofprofootball.com/stadiums/wrigley-field/