This didn't make sense to me. Cleveland has always had a football team, a baseball team, and a basketball team. Columbus only has a hockey team and it was a 2000 expansion team.
I realized that my perception of American cities is primarily colored by their sports teams. So what else might I not know? So I did what everyone else would do...dig into the data.
So this is a Hoagie Central exclusive chart. I'm including NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL but not MLS or any other leagues. I'm a hockey guy and not a soccer guy, so that's why I drew the line there.
This chart includes the top 50 Metro areas in America plus the 158th metro area. This includes all the 115 big four sports teams in America. The chart does not include the 7 Canadian cities.
It is sorted by people per team. The average people per team is 1.55 million. Based on this average, the green cities are overrepresented, while the cities in blue are underrepresented...except that there are 8 metro markets without teams. Those are marked in yellow bars. They are the most underrepresented as the chart assumes they have one team (since you can't divide by zero) but they do not. I've also marked the 13 members of the "team in every league" club.
Let's start here as they are the most underrepresented. The Riverside-San Bernardino area has a ton of people and no teams. More people than Denver, Minneapolis and Detroit who all have teams in every league. But...while Riverside is not part of the LA-Anaheim metro area, it is a part of the Greater Los Angeles region.
Next up is Austin, a city the same size as Pittsburgh. Based off of sports teams, I always thought of Pittsburgh as a major east coast city and Austin as a smallish college town. Texas already has lots of teams so, not sure that Austin will get one any time soon.
Then there's Norfolk/Virginia Beach and Richmond, two major metro with no teams. Both bigger than New Orleans or Buffalo. Seems like Virginia could support a team.
Providence, Hartford and Louisville and Birmingham round out the list. Providence and Hartford have lots of people but they're near NYC and Boston. I know Hartford lost their NHL team. Seems like this would be a good area to have a "New England" team but it's not going to happen. Also, typing it out reminds me how stupid the names New England and New York are. Just as stupid as having a place called France 2.
Cities with Under One Million per Team
So you've got Green Bay which just is a complete outlier. Here are some metro areas bigger than Green Bay: Spartanburg, Peoria, Hickory, Anchorage, Brownsville, Reading, Salinas.
Then you have these cities that seem like important big cities like Buffalo, New Orleans, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Nashville but they're jut not that big. And you've got Denver and Minneapolis which are big but warrant 3 teams, not 4.
Perfectly Represented Cities
I think it's interesting that the five cities closest to the average either have 1 team or 4 teams. You've got Jacksonville and OKC which warrant exactly one team, and Miami, Philly and DC that warrant 4. Nice job guys.
Cities with 5+ teams
It's one thing to have a team in all four leagues. It's another to do that and have an extra team. LA, Chicago and New York. But really, Chicago is not on the same level, just having two baseball teams. LA and New York have two teams in every league, quite the feat. Despite having all these teams, all three cities are still underrepresented compared to the average.
What about San Francisco Bay Area you ask? They've got two baseball teams. But the San Jose Sharks are considered part of their own San Jose metro and not the SF/Oak metro.
Cities that Could Use a Second Team
San Diego, Orlando, San Antonio, Portland and Sacramento all have enough people for a second team.
San Diego previously had a NBA and NFL team. The theory I've heard is that people enjoy the weather/beach so much that they don't need sports in their life. I kinda view one team cities differently as smaller cities. But Orlando is twice as big as Salt Lake City.
No comments:
Post a Comment