Discussion: Most/Least relevant sports cities

[sdgukhsdgl]

i wouldnt consider places like orlando and nashvile sports cities. nashville needs more than a nfl team and a irrelevant nhl team to get considered. I will give it props for being just a cool city.

if that is the criteria then we are only talking about 20 cities

[Velcro]

if an nfl team doesn't get a city in this discussion.. what the hell is this discussion about?  I would think an NFL team would automatically garner consideration. 

I could see someone saying say a Lacrosse doesn't get you in the conversation... but NFL? 

[Joe]

Randy,

The mere fact that you say Orlando couldn't support minor league baseball shows you're talking out of your ass.

Tinker Field sold out for years. When the team moved to Disney...that's when it went downhill.

Noone was driving 45 minutes for AA baseball.

[flsportsfan83]

Randy,

The mere fact that you say Orlando couldn't support minor league baseball shows you're talking out of your ass.

Tinker Field sold out for years. When the team moved to Disney...that's when it went downhill.

Noone was driving 45 minutes for AA baseball.

I was refering to the Orlando Rays

[Bruce Blingstein]

Most relevant: NYC and Chicago

Least relevant: Atlanta and Miami.

funny everyone keeps saying Boston, but they dont even have a football team.  How can a city with no football team be relevant?

[80mins]

Most relevant: NYC and Chicago

Least relevant: Atlanta and Miami.

funny everyone keeps saying Boston, but they dont even have a football team.  How can a city with no football team be relevant?

a) wouldn't that take NYC out of the running? and I think one could argue their relevance simply on the Celtics and Sox, though the Pats certainly add to the equation.

[raz7943]

Most relevant: NYC and Chicago

Least relevant: Atlanta and Miami.

funny everyone keeps saying Boston, but they dont even have a football team.  How can a city with no football team be relevant?

NYC does not have football either!

[Bruce Blingstein]

Really?  Write a letter to the Jets organization and the address will be in Hempstead, NEW YORK.  Just because they play in a rented out stadium across the river doesnt mean they are not a New York team. 

New York is the media capitol of the world.  Their teams are by far, not even even close, the most relevant teams in any sport. Every commisioner wants a New York team in their chamopinship.  Would you like the city of the viewers watching to have a population of 12 million or a city that has 3 million.  You marketing majors can answer that one.  Not saying this because Im from there, saying it because its true. 

Ask a major league baseball player where they want to play.  99% will say in NY. 

[Bruce Blingstein]

I think one could argue their relevance simply on the Celtics and Sox, though the Pats certainly add to the equation.

So you would say the Celtics with 17 Championships and the Sox' 7, only 2 of those were after 1918, over the New York Yankees and their 26 World series championships?  Wow! 

One team has more rings than your 2 teams you mentioned.

Lets not talk about the NY Giants, Mets, Islanders 4 in a row, Rangers with Messier, The Knicks in their day, NY Baseball Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers, Joe Namath and the Jets the superbowl that defined superbowl, because it will only prove my point even more.  Got Rings?

[80mins]

You helped prove my point with the Hempstead thing--even offices in Hempstead aren't in NYC, they're on Long Island. But I'm not here to bash NY or stick up for Boston as I've got no particular stake in either. It's pretty clear you hate Boston, but it would seem that to state they aren't relevant (and yes, i understand there was a long drought, but I would think that "relevant," by definition is timely and not necessarily history-based) is shortsighted.