11/21/24
August 04, 2004
The Best Sport City = Boston.: The SportingNews has picked the best sports cities again. Boston came out on top. They also picked the best sports cities by sport. The worst sports city, in case you were wondering, is Pine Bluff, Ark.. The complete list is also available. How did your hometown fare?
My hometown was probably not on the list. But Oxford is fucking useless when it comes to sport.
posted by salmacis at 01:29 PM on August 04, 2004
Even with the Tigers and Lions in town, we got #7...not too shabby...
posted by MeatSaber at 01:32 PM on August 04, 2004
Note: There was no Best Sports City in 1996 as we expanded and refined the rating system. Does this seem like a good enough reason?
posted by usfbull at 02:25 PM on August 04, 2004
Calgary's the best hockey town? Maybe during the playoff run, but with a small season ticket base and apathy when they're not in the playoffs, I wouldn't say so. And I live there.
posted by sauril at 02:37 PM on August 04, 2004
D/FW at no. 8 seems about fair, for a metroplex whose college sports rely strictly on SMU and TCU. It should be noted that the playoff banners that the city hung downtown for the Mavs and Stars were still up weeks after both were eliminated. That was just wrong. They sure gave Tulsa the smackdown though. For a city that's got some of the best high school football in the country, TU's basketball (and to a far lesser extent, football), a double-A ballclub, two minor league hockey teams, an Arena football team, and one of the best and well-maintained park systems I've had the pleasure of seeing, I'd think they at least deserve top 100. No offense to the good people of Ruston, LA, but I've got to give Tulsa's ranking a big WTF?
posted by Ufez Jones at 03:57 PM on August 04, 2004
San Diego's down at 36, but I'm actually surprised we're not lower. We'll probably climb up a bit next year with PetCo Park and the Padre's improved record. Otherwise, we stink.
posted by LionIndex at 04:27 PM on August 04, 2004
My hometown is #216. The place I live now is #4.
posted by nath at 04:27 PM on August 04, 2004
Does this seem like a good enough reason? No. Like the system works on a feed of live data and can't be populated by last year's info.
posted by yerfatma at 04:43 PM on August 04, 2004
and yet posted by garfield at 3:33 PM CST on August 4 and yet what?
posted by jerseygirl at 04:55 PM on August 04, 2004
nothin personal, but there seems to be a theme about Boston sports teams and the post-Boston relationship athletes have with beantown.(here's the link I wanted to link to, and still credit rxreed) This isn't unique to Boston by any stretch, but seems to for whatever reason pop up with unusual frequency in relation to Boston. I think its a product of the fans' passion that turns sour. Not an earth shattering observation, but I found it ironic that Boston is rated #1, and the same day an article's subtitle reads "Nothing is more annoying than Boston fans trying to justify Nomar trade." Do you think Boston gets a bum rap in this regard?
posted by garfield at 05:24 PM on August 04, 2004
I think Boston is probably wildly overrated thanks to the number of Harvard grads who come of age and learn to wax poetic about the local nine. Thanks to a bunch of BAs, BSs (especially that), MDs, PhD, etc., all you middle-Americans let us work you into a fine inferiority complex, as though Chicago doesn't bring as much to the proverbial sports table. You know what the Midwest is?
posted by yerfatma at 06:42 PM on August 04, 2004
They've got a pretty good set of criteria, although personally I'd be happier if they'd quantified them somehow (like, how is it weighted), but I understand how that would have gotten wordy. However, I must pick a nit and say that what they're really voting on is the best city for spectator sports (and a subset of them, at that). It's a little inconsistent, too -- they talk about the Marathon, but running isn't one of the sports they mention in their "best city for..." list. I can't even tell if they considered things like the Head of the Charles, which I always thought was a pretty cool event. But the "spectator" qualifier is important, IMO -- Boston is big on sports fandom, but I'm not sure how it would rank on sports participation. Better than Lubbock, TX, at a guess, but not even close to somewhere like Boulder, CO.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:15 PM on August 04, 2004
But why, say, are Princeton and West Long Branch (both of NJ) considered separately and SF-SJ-Oakland all lumped together as one? cause sf-sj-oakland is generally considered one region. kind of like how lumped ny-li-nj together (it really should be northern nj though). but princeton and west long branch aren't really related at all geographically. and what the hell besides girls high school soccer is there in east brunswick that it's the first town in nj listed?
posted by goddam at 08:47 PM on August 04, 2004
I'm surprised that the Raleigh area is ranked at #25. Seems kinda high. Let's see, we have bigtime college sports (State, Carolina, and Duke), a couple of minor league baseball teams (Durham Bulls [AAA - Tampa Bay Devil Rays] and Carolina Mudcats [A - Pittsburgh Pirates]), and a hockey team (Carolina Hurricanes). I don't get it. Why are we ahead of such places as Toronto?
posted by NoMich at 09:45 PM on August 04, 2004
cause sf-sj-oakland is generally considered one region. Not by the people who live here, not as far as I'm concerned.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:06 PM on August 04, 2004
well, the people who live there didn't make up this list, did they. :-)
posted by goddam at 10:24 PM on August 04, 2004
This is ridiculoid. How can this be quantified in any meaningful sense? Aparently having winning teams and actual citizen sports participation rate nothing. I could go on, but I seriously doubt there'd be a point.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:06 AM on August 05, 2004
Aparently having winning teams and actual citizen sports participation rate nothing. Winning did factor in; participation did not. I agree with you that if participation isn't considered at all, you're stretching it to call it the "best sports town". It could be nothing more than the best couch-potato town, using those standards.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:52 AM on August 05, 2004
How can this be quantified in any meaningful sense? It can't. All this means is that according to a unique set of metrics "measured" subjectively by a group of journalists, one particular city is considered "the best". Change one factor, emphasize one metric, or replace one author, and the rankings change.
posted by avogadro at 01:36 PM on August 05, 2004
We're #11! We're #11!
posted by Sister Havana at 01:58 PM on August 08, 2004
Amusing. But why, say, are Princeton and West Long Branch (both of NJ) considered separately and SF-SJ-Oakland all lumped together as one? Plus, it sure looks like Boston is getting credit for teams/events outside city limits so I'm sure other cities are as well.