PDA

View Full Version : Best Sports City?



*BaseClogger*
07-12-2008, 02:33 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/post/Forget-TitleTown-Where-do-you-want-to-be-a-fan-?urn=top,93426


Forget TitleTown: Where do you want to be a fan?
By Eamonn Brennan / Y! Sports Blogs
It's summer, which means at least one thing: ESPN is entertaining its masses (read: desperately grasping at ratings) with an American Idol-esque voting challenge. Last year, it was the execrable "Who's Now?", (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_Now)which pitted athletes against each other in some sort of nonsensical pop-culture tournament. True to form, ESPN has dubbed its 2008 feature "TitleTown." If you couldn't guess, its goal is to settle which city deserves to have the name "TitleTown," (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/titletown/index) even though Green Bay's called itself TitleTown for years. Brilliant.

We couldn't let this market-oriented, advertiser-optimized, crowdsourced "brilliance" abide. Who cares about "TitleTown," anyway? Sure, titles are cool and all, but life is short, choices are shorter, and the real question is: Where are the best places for sports fans to live? Sorry, ESPN, but these are the real contenders:

Chicago

The good: Chicago is uniquely divided by its two baseball teams -- crosstown fervor here is matched only in New York -- and uniquely united by its Bears. Wrigley Field remains one of the world's great sporting destinations, U.S. Cellular Field is a modern baseball standard, Soldier Field is recently renovated and the United Center housed some guy named Michael Jordan. Throw in a local recreational sporting tradition -- 16-inch softball leagues are terrifyingly competitive here -- and Chicago's a near-perfect place to live if you love sports.

The bad: Besides the Bulls, "winning" isn't exactly a habit in Chicago.

The ugly: Jay Mariotti; the weather.

New York

The good: New York is the epicenter of modern basketball tradition. Madison Square Garden is a shrine. Rucker Park is a mecca. The Yankees are sports' most successful all-time franchise, one with the financial clout (and, suddenly, the organizational intelligence) to compete any year they please. The Mets offer a slightly cuddlier alternative. The Giants, in case you haven't heard, had a bit of a successful Super Bowl this year, and the Jets' fan base is as devoted as any in sports. As in all things, there's not much New York doesn't offer, especially when it comes to sports. Oh, and street hoops are awesome.

The bad: Ironic hipster kickball (http://gawker.com/378022/brooklyn-hipster-kickball-the-prom-pics)-- not so awesome. Fans delight in booing their favorite players. Crowded. Expensive.

The ugly: Shea Stadium; pretty much everyone who likes sports in New York. (http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/the_sporting_blog/entry/view/8775/morning_constitutional_the_real_soprano)

Los Angeles

The good: The weather. Duh. Beyond the ability to play rec sports outdoors all year long, Los Angeles offers two high-profile collegiate programs, a rarity not found in most big cities, and one which helps negate the lack of a professional football team. Under ultimate dude Pete Carroll, USC is both entertaining and dominant, and UCLA's basketball program is one of the top five in the country (and the best of all time). Don't forget the Lakers and the Clippers -- one the glitzy, star-ridden uber-team, the other a lovable (if incredibly cheap) underdog.

The bad: The notion of having to drive to various stadiums makes this writer shudder. Also, no professional football team. Does L.A. really not care about the NFL?

The ugly: Lack of breathable air makes chances of surviving aforementioned pickup basketball game minute.

Boston

The good: Hate it or not, Boston's teams have won, and won, and won. The Patriots are a dynasty (albeit a potentially fading one), the Red Sox are the best-run franchise in Major League Baseball and the Celtics just cleaned up on their way to a 17th NBA title. The latter two teams have some of the best tradition in sports -- Fenway Park is beautiful, and even the most ardent Lakers fan can smile at old clips of Red Auerbach.

The bad: Where to start. Were you to move to Boston, you'd be forced to put up with the most annoying fans in the history of the planet, people that "suffered" and "anguished" for "80" years before they totally earned that first Sawx title. Because of that "anguish," those fans now believe success is a birthright, and have become everything they once hated -- Yankees fans.

The ugly: Pink hats at Fenway. Everyone in Boston sports media not named Gordon Edes. Hooded sweatshirts with the sleeves chopped off.

Atlanta

The good: Atlanta offers the big three in fine fashion -- the Braves are one of the more successful baseball franchises in the country, the Hawks (stay with me here) are an idiosyncratic basketball junkie's dream and the Falcons are, well, they used to have Michael Vick, and that was pretty cool. Not sure what happened there. Beyond pro sports, though, Atlanta sits at the nexus of SEC country, a short drive from the country's most raucous college football stadiums. "Where do we want to tailgate this week? UGA? Knoxville?" Just thinking about it sounds incredible.

The bad: Atlanta has pro sports teams, and, besides the Braves, they happen to be terrible.

The ugly: Navigating southern roads after a day of tailgating.

Austin

The good: University of Texas offers a giant campus full of recreational sports, while UT's basketball and football programs consistently flaunt top of the line athletes. Where better to see budding lottery picks like Kevin Durant than in Rick Barnes' talent factory? What's more, Austin isn't an overwhelmingly large city but is within driving distance of the following professional franchises: San Antonio Spurs, Houston Rockets, Houston Texans, Houston Astros, Dallas Cowboys, Dallas Mavericks, Texas Rangers and Dallas Stars. If high school sports are your thing, well, Texas is as crazy about high school sports as Friday Night Lights' author is about blogs. (http://ballhype.com/story/buzz_bissinger_freaks_out_at_will_leitch/)

The bad: Gas prices are high enough, and the Spurs are sort of boring.

The ugly: There's at least a 50 percent chance The Real World will show up there at any moment, and we're not here to make friends, OK?

Raleigh

The good: Raleigh, like Austin, sits at the sort of nexus that gives the well-rounded sports fan something of everything. Want NASCAR? North Carolina freaks for NASCAR. Want college basketball? Duke and North Carolina are literally minutes away. Want the NFL and NBA? Charlotte is just over yonder. Want golf? Because of its sprawling but not-too-urban nature, Raleigh has a tremendous recreational culture and the golf courses to match.

The bad: If you can't stand the Duke-UNC rivalry, Raleigh's probably not for you.

The ugly: No comment. (http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/gen/img/mar04/mike330.jpg)

reds1869
07-12-2008, 04:27 PM
I have to go with Boston. The atmosphere there during baseball season is incredible, and they are undyingly loyal to their teams.

Kingspoint
07-12-2008, 05:19 PM
New York City.....and no one else is even close.

If you haven't won a SuperBowl and a World Series, you don't even qualify.

Joseph
07-12-2008, 06:09 PM
This list is not worth the 1's and 0's used to create it.

Austin? Really? It's 'close' to Houston and Dallas.....big deal. The city of Houston has a couple of NBA titles because Jordan took a couple seasons off. Thats a helluva claim to title town.

Boston is close based on the Pats and Sox over the last decade, now add the C's.

New York has done well with the Yanks and now the G-Men.

LA doesn't even have football, and its baseball team that won a title recently is actually in Anaheim.

Chicago had Jordan in the 90's, but they also had Erik Kramer at QB for the Bears, and the Cubs don't even have people who have grandparents who know when their last title came.

Stupid stupid stupid list generated by a stupid stupid stupid company.

OnBaseMachine
07-12-2008, 06:53 PM
I'd have to go with Los Angeles and New York as the top two.

Look at the history of Los Angeles...the Dodgers, Lakers, Angels nearby, USC football and baseball, and UCLA basketball.

New York is right there too with 26 World Series titles by the Yankees, the Mets, Giants, and the Knicks.

improbus
07-12-2008, 07:03 PM
LA is "Title-town"
The Lakers, UCLA (not just basketball, they are dominant in many sports), USC, the Dodgers, etc...

NY has the Yanks, Giants, and the '80's Islanders; but most of the other teams have been disappointing. The Nets, Jets, Mets, Rangers, and Knicks have won 5 titles in the last 30 years. Plus they really don't have any good college teams.

MaineRed
07-12-2008, 07:26 PM
It sure as heck is not LA. To be the BEST sports city you have to have fans who at least care. Dodger goers don't even show up until the 3rd inning and they are gone by the 8th. Laker fans are mainly at the games to star gaze.

If you don't like the team, all fans are annoying. I say that because I can't stand the typical Boston sports fan. But like them or not they are as passionate, knowledgable and loyal as any fans out there. The Celtics weren't hurting in the ticket sale department, even in 07 when they were about the worst team in the league. There is no better enviroment than Fenway and we all know about the experience of being a Pats fan. Boston has hosted the Ryder Cup and perhaps the best US Open ever played.

On top of all that, Boston is a college town. You can watch ACC basketball and football (Big East before that) and the best college hockey in the nation with Hockey East. If you are factoring in how good the teams currently are as well as history, fans, enviroment and all the other stuff that has been discussed, I don't see how it is anywhere but Boston, at the moment. Plenty of towns have the history but simply don't have the current success.

westofyou
07-12-2008, 07:51 PM
It sure as heck is not LA. To be the BEST sports city you have to have fans who at least care. Dodger goers don't even show up until the 3rd inning and they are gone by the 8th.
Traffic is to blame for that too, especially getting to the game.. the 101 is a pain.

No mention of The Bay Area?

2 football teams, 2 baseball teams, a hockey team, soccer team, basketball team and several major colleges.

Oceans, mountain biking, the weather is always great.

*BaseClogger*
07-12-2008, 08:27 PM
I think the author weighed recent success too much in this evaluation. To me, the best sports city is the one with the best environment, fans, and franchises. I was suprised to see Detroit not mentioned, but I guess hockey doesn't matter...

Deepred05
07-13-2008, 01:07 AM
My Boston friends have become pretty obnoxious the past couple of years. If the Pats had won, I am afraid I couldn't stand to be around them much anymore.:)

Gainesville Red
07-13-2008, 01:33 AM
Ready for some bias?

So, Austin's better than Gainesville?

Caseyfan21
07-13-2008, 01:34 AM
This list is not worth the 1's and 0's used to create it.

Austin? Really? It's 'close' to Houston and Dallas.....big deal. The city of Houston has a couple of NBA titles because Jordan took a couple seasons off. Thats a helluva claim to title town.


No joke....if Austin is being used like this then why not Columbus? OSU sports have been as successful, if not more successful than Texas and Columbus is within a short drive of Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis (all within 2 hrs).

*BaseClogger*
07-13-2008, 01:42 AM
Ready for some bias?

So, Austin's better than Gainesville?

It wasn't just because of the college programs... what major pro franchises is Gainesville so close to?

Gainesville Red
07-13-2008, 01:21 PM
It wasn't just because of the college programs... what major pro franchises is Gainesville so close to?

The article said "driving distance."

I'll claim ignorance to how far in actual distance Austin is to major franchises. I'm too lazy to google it.

But Gainesville is "driving distance" from the Magic, Jaguars, Bucs, Lightning and Rays. (with in and hour and a half to two hours.)

I won't claim any being as "storied" as the Cowboys, but being at a Bucs game is pretty good, and they have a more recent Super Bowl win. As do the Lightning. (Although obviously not a Super Bowl.)

I've never been to Austin, I hear good things. I don't want it to sound like I'm throwing them under the bus. I said there's a bias, and finished the original post with a question mark.

Kingspoint
07-14-2008, 03:19 AM
The Nets, Jets, Mets, Rangers, and Knicks have won 5 titles in the last 30 years.

Don't forget the Islanders, too. They host the U S Open in Tennis, too. Some of the greatest boxing matches have occurred at Madison Square Garden, the greatest sport of all sports. And the Beatles arrived in the U. S. and played at Yankee Stadium.

Ticker tape parades occur in New York City for a reason. That's the city you want to be a part of when you win a Championship.

LA has never won a SuperBowl, so they don't even qualify.

How can you be the #1 Sports Town without a SuperBowl trophy (or even a team during the year you're trying to claim the name of titletown)?

improbus
07-14-2008, 09:29 AM
Don't forget the Islanders, too. They host the U S Open in Tennis, too. Some of the greatest boxing matches have occurred at Madison Square Garden, the greatest sport of all sports. And the Beatles arrived in the U. S. and played at Yankee Stadium.

Ticker tape parades occur in New York City for a reason. That's the city you want to be a part of when you win a Championship.

LA has never won a SuperBowl, so they don't even qualify.

How can you be the #1 Sports Town without a SuperBowl trophy (or even a team during the year you're trying to claim the name of titletown)?

Ummm...The LA Raiders won the Super Bowl in 1981. Plus, they've hosted 7 of them. They have plenty of history with that. They also host the Rose Bowl every year. You can't call a city title-town just because they host an event. That is more coincidence than anything else.

Look, I hate LA more than any other city in the country. I still hate the Dodgers, even years after the Reds-Dodgers rivalry ran its course, so this isn't easy for me. But, NY teams not named the Yankees and Giants have been HUGE underachievers. Boston has won as many titles in the last 8 years (6 titles) as NY has won in the last twenty (I don't count the Devils, who play in Jersey).

RichRed
07-14-2008, 10:41 AM
Atlanta??? Ha-ha, good one.

Roy Tucker
07-14-2008, 11:13 AM
Awfully nebulous concept that implicitly skews towards big cities.

I think you'd have to start by dividing it up into best pro sports town, best college sports, best high school sports, and best recreational sports. And even then, you'd pick the top 10 and throw them into a hat and it would be a valid list.

But top sports town? Nah, can't do it.

15fan
07-14-2008, 11:14 AM
Atlanta??? Ha-ha, good one.

Don't lose sight of the original question.

"the real question is: Where are the best places for sports fans to live?"

In addition to the MLB/NFL/NHL/NBA access, you've also got very easy access to both SEC and ACC sports, including things like the SEC football championship game and SEC and ACC basketball tournaments. They sell out the Dome every year for the Peach / Chik-Fil-A Bowl, which usually ends up being one of the better non-BCS bowls during bowl season.

In the decade+ since I've lived here, the Super Bowl, multiple Final Fours, and 3 of the 4 All-Star games have been here. Probably the most storied golf tournament on the continent is a Tiger Woods driver due east in Augusta. If you're into car racing (I'm not), Talladega is a stone's throw west. 2 hours max in just about any direction gets you to multiple SAL or Southern League games if you dig minor league baseball. Like running? World's largest 10K is here, and it's a blast regardless of whether you run or spectate. Like some of the more obscure sports? Pro Beach Volleyball makes a stop here each summer, there's an Arena Football team in Gwinnett, and the Tour de Georgia will let you get your bike racing fix. If you dig hiking, mountain biking, etc, a 90 minute drive gets you into the Appalachians.

About the only thing that the city doesn't have is pro tennis. And I've never understood why there isn't a tour stop here (aside from the lack of a venue). ALTA (local rec tennis league) is massively popular here. It's crazy the number of people who play tennis in this area. I'd have to imagine that a stop here would draw quite well.

The local teams don't get a whole lot of support because (1) generally they're pretty lousy, and (2) most people who live here didn't grow up here. But if you are a sports fan in the generic sense and want a wide variety of opportunities, this is a great place to be.

Edit: And if there's a sporting event in another part of the country that you want to go to, catching a direct and/or cheap flight is pretty easy. 2.5 hours on a plane gets you to Miami/Boston/Denver and anywhere in between.

Highlifeman21
07-14-2008, 11:21 AM
Wait a minute....

Cincinnati didn't make the list?

Kingspoint
07-14-2008, 03:31 PM
Ummm...The LA Raiders won the Super Bowl in 1981. Plus, they've hosted 7 of them. They have plenty of history with that. They also host the Rose Bowl every year. You can't call a city title-town just because they host an event. That is more coincidence than anything else.

Look, I hate LA more than any other city in the country. I still hate the Dodgers, even years after the Reds-Dodgers rivalry ran its course, so this isn't easy for me. But, NY teams not named the Yankees and Giants have been HUGE underachievers. Boston has won as many titles in the last 8 years (6 titles) as NY has won in the last twenty (I don't count the Devils, who play in Jersey).

They didn't move to LA until after they won the Superbowl in January of 1981. They played their first game there on August 29th, 1982.


Yes, New Jersey does count as both the Jets and Giants also play in New Jersey.

It's also not about what's happened in just the last decade.

LA didn't even get on the professional sports scene until around 1960 as the Dodgers were arriving from New York City, the Lakers were arriving from Minneapolis, and the Rams were at the beginnings of their franchise.

Boston has a larger claim as the 2nd-best Title-Town/Sports Town than LA ever will. St. Louis is a much better sports town than LA. As one person put it, the LA fans speak for themselves, as they are about the worst sports fans of any city in the United States.

You look up the word "bandwagon" and you get a picture of an LA sports fan.

LA is a wussy town.

Sorry. No team has ever won a Superbowl with Los Angeles in their name.

Kingspoint
07-14-2008, 03:37 PM
Don't lose sight of the original question.

"the real question is: Where are the best places for sports fans to live?"

In addition to the MLB/NFL/NHL/NBA access, you've also got very easy access to both SEC and ACC sports, including things like the SEC football championship game and SEC and ACC basketball tournaments. They sell out the Dome every year for the Peach / Chik-Fil-A Bowl, which usually ends up being one of the better non-BCS bowls during bowl season.

In the decade+ since I've lived here, the Super Bowl, multiple Final Fours, and 3 of the 4 All-Star games have been here. Probably the most storied golf tournament on the continent is a Tiger Woods driver due east in Augusta. If you're into car racing (I'm not), Talladega is a stone's throw west. 2 hours max in just about any direction gets you to multiple SAL or Southern League games if you dig minor league baseball. Like running? World's largest 10K is here, and it's a blast regardless of whether you run or spectate. Like some of the more obscure sports? Pro Beach Volleyball makes a stop here each summer, there's an Arena Football team in Gwinnett, and the Tour de Georgia will let you get your bike racing fix. If you dig hiking, mountain biking, etc, a 90 minute drive gets you into the Appalachians.

About the only thing that the city doesn't have is pro tennis. And I've never understood why there isn't a tour stop here (aside from the lack of a venue). ALTA (local rec tennis league) is massively popular here. It's crazy the number of people who play tennis in this area. I'd have to imagine that a stop here would draw quite well.

The local teams don't get a whole lot of support because (1) generally they're pretty lousy, and (2) most people who live here didn't grow up here. But if you are a sports fan in the generic sense and want a wide variety of opportunities, this is a great place to be.

Edit: And if there's a sporting event in another part of the country that you want to go to, catching a direct and/or cheap flight is pretty easy. 2.5 hours on a plane gets you to Miami/Boston/Denver and anywhere in between.

and you can always find a front row seat because no one ever shows up to any of the Atlanta Sports' teams games, even when they're winning. I said that LA sports' fans were the worst in the U. S. . I take that back. They at least show up when teams are winning for a portion of the game. Atlanta fans don't show up at all, unless the tickets are given away free, they have a relative that works for the team, or they accidentally walked into the wrong building. The words Atlanta and Sportsfan are oxymorons.

improbus
07-14-2008, 03:59 PM
They didn't move to LA until after they won the Superbowl in January of 1981. They played their first game there on August 29th, 1982.


Yes, New Jersey does count as both the Jets and Giants also play in New Jersey.

It's also not about what's happened in just the last decade.

LA didn't even get on the professional sports scene until around 1960 as the Dodgers were arriving from New York City, the Lakers were arriving from Minneapolis, and the Rams were at the beginnings of their franchise.

Boston has a larger claim as the 2nd-best Title-Town/Sports Town than LA ever will. St. Louis is a much better sports town than LA. As one person put it, the LA fans speak for themselves, as they are about the worst sports fans of any city in the United States.

You look up the word "bandwagon" and you get a picture of an LA sports fan.

LA is a wussy town.

Sorry. No team has ever won a Superbowl with Los Angeles in their name.
i guess we are arguing two different things. I am NOT claiming that LA fans are the best. No sane person would ever claim that. However, it is no mistake that their teams have been extremely successful. UCLA is widely considered the top university in the country for successful sports teams. UCLA has 100 team titles (1st), and USC has 84 (3rd), (Stanford is in the middle). If they win 28 more titles, they will equal the entire Big Ten.
LA Dodgers: 5 titles
LA Angels: 1 title
Anaheim Ducks: 1 title
LA Lakers: 9 titles

On a National Scale, they have been extremely competitive.

IslandRed
07-14-2008, 04:35 PM
Sorry. No team has ever won a Superbowl with Los Angeles in their name.

Super Bowl XVIII
Jan. 22, 1984
Los Angeles Raiders 38, Washington Redskins 9

Not saying you're wrong about L.A. overall, just correcting that one thing.

15fan
07-14-2008, 04:55 PM
and you can always find a front row seat because no one ever shows up to any of the Atlanta Sports' teams games, even when they're winning. I said that LA sports' fans were the worst in the U. S. . I take that back. They at least show up when teams are winning for a portion of the game. Atlanta fans don't show up at all, unless the tickets are given away free, they have a relative that works for the team, or they accidentally walked into the wrong building. The words Atlanta and Sportsfan are oxymorons.

I think you missed my point.

There are plenty of sports fans in Atlanta.

But there are very few hardcore fans of the local franchises because the vast majority of the population didn't grow up here.

That's a very important distinction to make.

Chip R
07-14-2008, 05:10 PM
Wait a minute....

Cincinnati didn't make the list?


I'm outraged. They are the Kelly Cup champs.

Revering4Blue
07-14-2008, 10:09 PM
Raleigh, like Austin, sits at the sort of nexus that gives the well-rounded sports fan something of everything. Want NASCAR? North Carolina freaks for NASCAR. Want college basketball? Duke and North Carolina are literally minutes away. Want the NFL and NBA? Charlotte is just over yonder. Want golf? Because of its sprawling but not-too-urban nature, Raleigh has a tremendous recreational culture and the golf courses to match.

No mention of the 2006 Stanley Cup champion Hurricanes, N.C State, AAA and AA baseball or the proximity to Wake Forest University Sports.

No Bay Area?

No Detroit?

No Denver?

This list reeks.

paintmered
07-14-2008, 10:25 PM
No Fargo?

Yachtzee
07-14-2008, 11:12 PM
Awfully nebulous concept that implicitly skews towards big cities.

I think you'd have to start by dividing it up into best pro sports town, best college sports, best high school sports, and best recreational sports. And even then, you'd pick the top 10 and throw them into a hat and it would be a valid list.

But top sports town? Nah, can't do it.

It's definitely something that comes down to opinion where opinion is going to skew toward the location of the respondent. For example, an outsider might look at a place like Cleveland and note the lack of an NHL franchise and a dominant Division I college football program as drawbacks. But people often neglect the fact that Cleveland fans show strong support for Ohio State and Notre Dame when it comes to college football, they host the MAC basketball tournament and NE Ohio follows high school football to a degree that rivals any school in Texas, "Friday Night Lights" be damned. A city like Cincinnati lacks pro basketball and hockey, yet is an epicenter for college sports even when support for the pro teams lag, and like Cleveland has an incredible following for high school sports. In fact, I would argue that the relative lack of alternative entertainment avenues puts all level of sports in the spotlight in Midwestern cities than it does in the large markets. I have neighbors who will go to football games on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday in the fall.

Yachtzee
07-14-2008, 11:13 PM
No Fargo?

A hotbed for hockey?

cincyinco
07-15-2008, 07:42 AM
I'll stick with Denver, thanks. Good franchises, for the most part, great fans and great atmosphere. Soccer, hockey, baseball, football, lacrosse, arena football, minor league ball a short drive away, winter sports, basketball... Superbowls and Stanley cups and fresh off a world series appearance. Collegiate level sports like the buffs and du pioneers. Air force etc. I'd have to think its a pretty solid sports city. Maybe not "storied" but certainly worthy of mention and consideration.

Blimpie
07-15-2008, 01:26 PM
Ready for some bias?

So, Austin's better than Gainesville?No way, no how....

By the way, Atlanta is the worst sports town EVER. Nowhere else is even close.

IslandRed
07-15-2008, 02:56 PM
Awfully nebulous concept that implicitly skews towards big cities.

I think you'd have to start by dividing it up into best pro sports town, best college sports, best high school sports, and best recreational sports. And even then, you'd pick the top 10 and throw them into a hat and it would be a valid list.

But top sports town? Nah, can't do it.

Good point. And here's where it gets even more nebulous:

Which city has the best sports teams?
Which city has the best sports fans?
Which city is the best place for a sports fan?

Three different questions and quite possibly three different answers depending on who's being asked. I think the third question is what the original article was proposing to answer, not that it necessarily did.

Sean_CaseyRules
07-16-2008, 11:26 AM
New York City.....and no one else is even close.

If you haven't won a SuperBowl and a World Series, you don't even qualify.

Didn't Boston do this???

Nugget
07-16-2008, 02:24 PM
It comes down to the original question and what it means to be a sports fan. Does it mean winning - then yes if you follow NY teams you're likely to follow one that will win something over your lifetime.

If it means going to watch a quality sport in a quality arena then I don't think the article discusses that at all.

Kingspoint
07-17-2008, 12:53 AM
Didn't Boston do this???

Yes. They have a shot at #2.

Baltimore has done both a couple of times, too. Plus, it's where Babe Ruth was born. I'm sure there's more for Baltimore, but I can't think of it. They've also won an NBA title, I believe in '76.

Kingspoint
07-17-2008, 12:56 AM
i guess we are arguing two different things. I am NOT claiming that LA fans are the best. No sane person would ever claim that. However, it is no mistake that their teams have been extremely successful. UCLA is widely considered the top university in the country for successful sports teams. UCLA has 100 team titles (1st), and USC has 84 (3rd), (Stanford is in the middle). If they win 28 more titles, they will equal the entire Big Ten.
LA Dodgers: 5 titles
LA Angels: 1 title
Anaheim Ducks: 1 title
LA Lakers: 9 titles

On a National Scale, they have been extremely competitive.

LA was the first City I thought of when I heard the question because of everything you say. It's just that emptiness of not having won a SuperBowl and not even having a team in the last 10 years.

(There's no doubt that the PAC-10 is the "Conference of Champions".)

RichRed
07-17-2008, 02:46 PM
Yes. They have a shot at #2.

Baltimore has done both a couple of times, too. Plus, it's where Babe Ruth was born. I'm sure there's more for Baltimore, but I can't think of it. They've also won an NBA title, I believe in '76.

Baltimore didn't win an NBA title. They lost to the Bucks in '71. After they became the Washington Bullets, they won their only title in '78.

EDIT: They did win a BAA title, pre-NBA, in 1948.

Kingspoint
07-17-2008, 03:30 PM
Baltimore didn't win an NBA title. They lost to the Bucks in '71. After they became the Washington Bullets, they won their only title in '78.

EDIT: They did win a BAA title, pre-NBA, in 1948.

Does that count?

Foxboro isn't exactly Boston.