Best Pro Sports Teams, Cites, States

I've struggled with how to determine the following:
"What pro sports franchise can literally say 'we are the best'?"
"What is the best sports city?"
"What state is the king of sports?"

Depending on criteria, the answer can vary. Going back to when (1800's, WWII, 1990)? How do you handle cities with new teams (Orlando, Nashville, Charlotte) vs. established cities (Chicago, Philly, New York). How do you handle cities with more franchises like New York (2 baseball, 2 football, 2 hockey, 1 basketball) vs. San Antonio (1 basketball)? How do you handle titles in a 6 team league (old NHL) vs. a 32 team league (current NFL).

I believe I have concocted the most balanced scoring system possible. This exercise started with me at the city level. I was curious how cities for which I have been loyal (Baltimore, Houston) rank against so called sports towns of Philly and Boston? All ranking systems had to start at the team level (how did your teams do) and roll up to the city level (how have all your teams done). So I started with the teams. How do I compare a team like the Florida Marlins (2 titles since 1993 inception) vs. the Red Sox (2 titles since WWI)?

For starters, the time period really needed to be established. I decided most arbitrarily that the measurement shall be from the year of my birth forward. That's 1974 - today, championships played in that season (starting with Super Bowl VIII, rolling through NHL/NBA titles, ending with the 1974 World Series).

More ground rules, only the MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL were considered. No ABA, WHL, USFL, MLS, WNBA, etc. The four majors.

Now how to handle expansion, league imbalance in terms of postseason, etc? Fear not sports fans, I figured it out. To take into account all factors, I came up with a poker approach:

Every year, every team in the four majors chips in $10 to the pot. If there are 22 teams, then the pot is $220. If there are 32, it's $320. The winner of the league gets 50% of the pot. The runner up gets 25%. The two league/conference finalists get 10% each. That would be your ALCS, NLCS, AFC, NFC, and Eastern/Western conference runners up. The final 5% is divided among the other playoff participants. That will vary from 0.42% for the current NBA/NHL to 1.25% for MLB. Keeping in mind that each team will contribute above 3% of the pot, making playoffs isn't going to do much for you. Getting to semifinals, finals, and titles is what gets the cash. And I think fairly. There were years in the NHL that 16 out of 21 teams made the playoffs, that's not money worthy. Making the World Series, Super Bowl, Stanley Cup Final, or NBA Final and winning it makes a franchise success.

Administrative note, for the pre-6 division MLB days, the ALCS/NLCS losers take 12.5%, as there were no other playoff contenders to take pot (except in 1981, in which the strike half winners who didn't win the division got their cut).

More administration, each city/team is considered independent. The Baltimore Colts are not associated with the Indianapolis Colts. Nor the Montreal Expos and the Washington Nationals. This helps peel off the city factors for future study. Two oddities, there are two Oakland Raiders and two Cleveland Browns. They can easily be combined, but arbitrarily they represent some difference in franchise to me so they were kept separate.

There were two mergers, ABA/NBA, NHL/WHL. Both were 4 teams or less being absorbed, so they were considered expansions, which is really what they were. Obviously the more significant AL/NL and AFL/NFL mergers were well before 1974 (another reason to start after 1967).

The poker parameters can be tweaked, but the winners will still probably emerge the same as future blogs will outline. The only "bias" is that of dynasty. Is it easier to establish a dynasty in the NBA or MLB than the NFL or NHL? That is up to interpretation, the numbers that fall out will attest. But remember, it is a zero sum game, all leagues settle out their pots at the end of the year, so no league will all be at the top with others at the bottom. Standard deviation is the metric.

As the obvious first series posts of this blog, I plan to roll out the teams in sets of 30. There have been 147 city franchises since 1974, so start with 27, then go with 30's for five posts. Some of the fun is guessing who are the worst as well as the best. Where will your teams fall? Who are the Top 10 franchises?

After franchises are dispositioned, we'll explore cities and then states. I've run the preliminary numbers, am somewhat surprised at the #1 state, stay tuned!

Symptom of the problem with sports today

I stumbled across this headline today and it struck a nerve: Pick one: LeBron James or NBA playoffs: Free-agency saga has more drama, human interest than postseason games so far.

I have no previous opinion of the author of the article, ESPN's Mr. Tim Keown, and find ESPN articles well written (as that one surely is if I had the stomach to read it) and I frequently read (Insider subscriber). My offense is not with the premise or his opinion, it's with the fact that most readers probably agree. At what point did the story behind sports become more of a story than the sports themselves? Has this years playoffs not been filled with stories? Kobe having his knee drained between series? Pretty sure the Western Conference finals will decide whether the AZ Immigration legislation is repealed. The Celtics and their band of older men just waltzed through Orlando and smacked the Magic in the chops but I have a feeling they're going to respond like a cornered junk yard dog. The Spurs put a hurt on the favored Mavs, and there have been some game 7's. Yet. We think about next year. And the year after. Who will LBJ sign with? What will the deal be? Will Cal come with him? Coincidence that the two markets in play are New York and Chicago? Probably not. I don't blame the markets themselves for focusing (local news media, etc). After all, your season is done. I just don't think the average fan (who tunes into ESPN) and especially those smaller markets like Orlando and Phoenix should have their accomplishments ignored for a story that isn't going to settle for months and may or may not affect next years playoffs (not that it matters, maybe they'll focus on the free agents that year instead).

Watching sports, a personal take

I thought I'd give my blog followers a basic layout of which sports I watch/follow vs. those I could live the rest of my life never seeing again.

Sports I'll watch even if I know no players and/or have no rooting interest in the teams
College Football
MLB
World Cup Soccer
Horse Racing
PGA
NFL

Sports I enjoy watching if I know the players and/or have a rooting interest in the teams
NHL
NCAA Baseball
Curling (Women)
Track and Field

Sports I follow but don't usually watch even if I have a favorite team, but might watch
NBA
NCAA Basketball (Men)
NASCAR
NCAA Softball
Olympics (general once per olympiad sports)
NCAA Volleyball (Women)

Sports I really don't watch nor have a favorite team, but at least read headlines
Tennis
Boxing
MLS
NCAA Basketball (Women)
FIFA
Swimming
NCAA Hockey

Sports that if they ended tomorrow I might not notice
WNBA
MMA
PBA
Lacrosse
Other Motor Sports
Curling (Men)


The above are in no particular order other than how I remembered them.

As for "likes", I will watch Akron play Eastern Michigan on a Tuesday night if ESPN puts the game on TV. I will tune into a PGA event on Sunday, even if Tiger isn't playing. I will watch the Arkansas Derby or Santa Anita Stakes even if I haven't heard of the horses. And I can't wait for the World Cup.

But you're probably not going to get much insight into the latest bowling matches, who is favored to win the NCAA lacrosse title, or the UFC 100-and-whatever. I have no idea who is leading the Indy Racing League and despite liking women's curling, just can't stand to watch guys play.

In recent years, basketball has ticked down a spot or two, I've been frustrated at the lack of continuity on the college game due to early draft entry, and the NBA is too much about the officials calls. Boxing has also tanked lately, I used to watch/order all the fights, now it's too expensive and not enough marquee names.

NHL is almost in the top group, definitely is for the playoffs but don't plop down and watch enough of the regular season to compare it to the top line sports, where I'll watch any NFL or MLB game on TV when given the chance.

This is just another primer in a series of a few before I start rolling out the deep thoughts, stay tuned!

What this blog is...

I've been kicking around the idea of having my own Sports blog for a while, always had "reasons why not". No time. Nobody would read. Too much pressure to come up with content. Phooey, I'm pulling the trigger. While blogs on sports are a dime a dozen, let me tell you why I think mine might be different...

1) You will see from my profile I'm from Houston, big fan of Houston teams. Graduate of the University of Texas. Also like and hate other various teams from around all leagues. However, I'm NOT going to write about one sport, one region, one aspect. For a while I was active on various Longhorn sports boards, loved to listen to local sports radio, etc. Now I feel if I write from that angle, I'm going to come up with very little new. It's just a borrow from here, rephrase from there, nothing added...I'm not that creative!

2) I refuse, REFUSE to take up the media bias that is inherent in sports. In other words, no uber-focus on Tiger, the Yankees, the Red Sox, Kobe, Sid the Kid, free agency, the BCS, King James, the Cowboys, the New York football Giants, the Mets, the Trojans, the Cubs, the Heisman or Barack Obama. That doesn't mean from time to time I won't talk about them, but it gets to the point that every NFL Today broadcast starts with the Cowboys round up, Baseball tonight must have the in depth about what's wrong with the Red Sox, and ESPN College Gameday does a 30 minute roundup of Heisman candidates. In September. Case in point is when Fox broke into the Red Sox game clinching game to discuss A-Rod's free agency move.

3) I will be very critical of TV coverage. I have been sorely disappointed in the direction of TV coverage and will let you know about it. See the A-Rod example above, I remember when Fox was chatting with Eric Byrnes in McCovey Cove without play by play when Ichiro hit the first and only inside the park homer in All Star game history. Last year Fox decided to spend the whole broadcast talking about Halladay's free agency. I tuned in to watch a game, not Byrnes floating around in the cove talking about his dog named Bruin.

4) It's about the numbers, I frequently will cite numbers to support my thoughts. I'm an engineer what do you expect!?

5) I will have a sports bias. There are certain sports I just don't follow as much (anymore). I remember when I was a kid, I would scour the daily newspaper just hoping some sporting event was on TV (before we had cable). Now it's a matter of which sport I want, so I no longer watch tennis or college basketball (gasp) just because it is on.

So sit back and expect to see a fans fan blog. I want to talk about how the fan interacts with sports. How the media skews what fans interpret. I hope to be evenhanded and fair to all in the sports world, we shall see!