Seattle: I really don’t know, but given that they’ve sent away a baseball team and a basketball team to other cities in the past, the Seahawks probably by default.

Sounders.

This is a very interesting discussion. The city I know best is Philly, and I think that it's really open between the Phillies and Eagles.

The Phillies clearly were on the rise until the 2012 season, when they disappointed Philly fandom. But then the Eagles s-ucked even worse, and while the Phillies are not as strong as they were, they do have a chance to go to the playoffs if Halladay-Lee-Hammels are what they were in 2011 (and if Utley is Utley, and if Howard is not a carcass, and if the OF produces something, etc., etc.).

The one relevant fact that I see is that the Phillies did prove that they are a financial superpower (or phrased differently, that the Delaware Valley has revenue streams that can be tapped in such a way that the Phillies can be in the upper financial reasons of the industry). And since their TV deal is up in a couple of years (I think in 2015), that bodes VERY well for the Phillies long term.

For Green Bay, Wisconsin, I'm going to say kickboxing.

I was surprised to find, upon arriving in MPLS, that this is at least as much a baseball town as a football town. The Twins have a very deep and solid following.

I disagree with Oakland. I would go Warriors > A's > Raiders.

Detroit: Great baseball town, but they seem to live and die with the Wings more. My relatives who live there all do anyway. I could be persuaded that Detroit is primarily a baseball town, though.

Nope it's the Wings. Tigers are a strong second though.

Lakers of course lap the field here.

Denver: Skiing. Unless you're limiting it to spectator sports, in which case it's clearly the Broncos.

Craig's choices seem to be pretty good. My two cents based on places I've lived:

DETROIT: Underrated as an all-sports town, Detroit/Michigan supports all of its teams pretty well, even the Lions (they kinda hate-watch them, but they still watch them). Hockey probably wins in terms of hard-core fans, but I think there might be more breadth of support for the Tigers -- especially when they're good. I think Robert is right that the Tigers are a "strong second."

SAN FRANCISCO: I lived there from 1995-2000 and at the time it was definitely a 49ers town, even though the Giants were better and demographically it would seem that San Franciscans would be more partial to genteel, intellectual baseball than macho, warlike football. Obviously since I left SF, lots of things have happened -- PacBell/AT&T Park was built (I was there for one season) and the Giants won two World Series. So I wouldn't be surprised if SF is now a baseball town. But the Niners are good again...

OAKLAND: Gotta be the Raiders, even though the A's have been more successful and never left for Los Angeles. A's fans are great, but not numerous. Casual/front-running baseball fans probably prefer the Giants now.

TORONTO: Yeah, no doubt it's the Leafs.

cleveland = browns

I think KC is secretly a baseball town, and it definitely was 20 years ago. I don't know if the Royals decades of suckitude have killed that off for good. But from 1975-1988, there was no one tailgating for Chiefs games, and Royals games were the cool place to be. It will be interesting to see how people respond if the Royals ever got good again. The Chiefs have burned a few bridges during the Pioli era - if the Royals had capitalized by being good, they could have won the town over again.

The professional sport Atlanta follows the most is SEC football.

I think if the Cardinals ever had an extended losing period (they've frankly had an amazing run of about half a century), the town would be a hockey town. The Blues are huge there.

The Orioles got a lot of affirmation late in the season when a number of their players were cheered quite loudly by the crowd at a late-September Ravens game. It's not close (and even when Camden Yards sold out every night, it wasn't the same fans).

The professional sport Atlanta follows the most is SEC football.

This is also true of Tampa (though they are torn between the Gators/FSU; they stand united in their hatred of Miami).

Denver: Skiing. Unless you're limiting it to spectator sports, in which case it's clearly the Broncos.

Is it skiing? I seem to know of a lot more cyclists, runners, hikers.
Yeah, for spectator sports no one's close to the Broncos.

Sounders.

How do their tv ratings compare to the Seahawks? I'd be surprised if it's close.

Detroit is underrated is an all-sport city. The Wings might be number one in the city but that's because they are so well-run that they've been really good for like 25 years. I don't know that they'd have a ton of support if they ever struggle. The Lions have one playoff victory and they are still very well-supported. I actually think if the Lions could ever be consistently good, it'd be a football town.

In terms of pro sports, other than St. Louis and maybe Boston (baseball), and Pittsburgh and Washington (football), pretty much every city's preferences are determined by the relative success of their teams, and pretty much every city's preferences go in cycles. Go through the list of Major League cities and try to find any other than those four who haven't switched preferences over the years.

So I wouldn't be surprised if SF is now a baseball town. But the Niners are good again...

Nah, it's always the Niners. They are like the Red Wings in Detroit. They've been good for long periods at a time over many years and have support of the entire bay area. People in San Jose and Walnut Creek are Niner fans. Not necessarily Giant fans.

The Lions are the clear number-one team in Detroit. Hockeytown? More like Frontrunnertown. When the Wings were bad, you could shoot a cannon through Olympia without hitting anybody. It's the same with the Tigers. The Pistons might as well not even exist when they're down. But Detroit cares about the Lions, even when they're bad. When they win a championship again, the celebration will dwarf anything we've seen for the other teams.

I think I know more Detroit sports fans than any other variety except Philly and Pittsburgh, and they barely ever say anything about the Lions. During football season they talk more about UM football than the Lions. This has been the case for as long as I can remember knowing these people. (10 years?)

Assertions about what would happen if the Lions had a great team sound kind of like speculations about what will happen to Portugal when King Sebastian returns.

Nah, it's always the Niners.

I don't know by what criteria these types of things can be judged on besides attendance but living in the city, people seemed way more excited about the Giants being in the World Series than the Niners in the Super Bowl, and the Giants were just there two years ago. I think with the Giants recent success they've become a bit more popular. Though maybe it has to do with the Niners moving soon.

How do their tv ratings compare to the Seahawks? I'd be surprised if it's close.

It's definitely a Seahawks town, but the Sounders may be a solid #2. If the Mariners ever did something interesting it might be a different story.

In terms of pro sports, other than St. Louis and maybe Boston (baseball), and Pittsburgh and Washington (football), pretty much every city's preferences are determined by the relative success of their teams, and pretty much every city's preferences go in cycles. Go through the list of Major League cities and try to find any other than those four who haven't switched preferences over the years.

Toronto? Toronto?! TORONTO?!?! Now, the Raptors have never really had success, but the Jays couldn't get passed 'em (and the Argos certainly can't, despite a ton of success, though perhaps they're a special case).

Chicago: This is an interesting one. I feel like it’s a Bears city, but I’d like to hear arguments on it. Walking around there in the summer and the city just reeks baseball, so it’s probably closer than I imagine.

I think the most accurate way to put it would be that Chicago is a baseball town but its most popular team is the Bears because fan loyalty isn't split between two teams like it is with baseball.

And since their TV deal is up in a couple of years (I think in 2015), that bodes VERY well for the Phillies long term.

iirc, the phillies own the channel that broadcasts the bulk of their games, so unless i'm missing something, their revenue may very well be maxed out there.

Didn't we have this conversation recently?

Detroit is underrated is an all-sport city. The Wings might be number one in the city but that's because they are so well-run that they've been really good for like 25 years. I don't know that they'd have a ton of support if they ever struggle. The Lions have one playoff victory and they are still very well-supported. I actually think if the Lions could ever be consistently good, it'd be a football town.

So much this. If the Lions were ever any good, they would own Detroit. Own it. (Imagine if the Lions had been as successful as the Red Wings the last two decades: perennial contender, numerous playoff wins, a Super Bowl title or three. Detroit sports radio would never talk about anybody else, ever.)

It would be interesting to see what would happen to the Red Wings' level of support if the team drifted into mediocrity, as they seem to be doing this mini-season. Not their 70s/80s level of suckitude -- just mediocrity. Hell, they haven't even been able to sell out playoff games lately.

Nobody cares about the Pistons.

And the Tigers -- well, they've been solid contenders for six of the last seven years now, and should be for at least the next couple. This has never really happened for this franchise before; the only other time you could've said, "Detroit can win the World Series" for more than a few years would be 1983-88, or perhaps in the 1930s. They're winners, and they play in a relatively new ballpark. Let's win it all this year, boys...bless you.

Toronto #1-#10 is the Leafs, Leafs, Leafs, Leafs, Leafs, Leafs, Leafs, Leafs, Leafs and Leafs. Then comes the Jays, then probably the Rock (Lacrosse - the actually sell out the hockey arena for this), Toronto FC soccer, Raptors and Argos. I'm kind of surprised we don't see more media coverage of the lacrosse team as there is a clear fanbase there. Raptors climb when they are in playoff contention to the Jays level but when they suck (as they have for awhile) there are a niche market just like the Rock are.

then probably the Rock (Lacrosse - the actually sell out the hockey arena for this)

Did not know that. I guess people smell what they're cooking.

Didn't we have this conversation recently?

Yeah. My question is, which cuisine reigns supreme in each major league city. My guesses:

Baltimore - crab cakes, Boston - chowdah, New York - bagels, Tampa Bay - the Early Bird special, Toronto - moose, Chicago - wind, Cleveland - regret, Detroit - bullets, Kansas City - barbecue, Minneapolis - lutefisk, Dallas - beef, Houston - more beef, Los Angeles - self-satisfaction, Oakland - can't afford food, Seattle - coffee, Atlanta - grits, Miami - mojitos, Philly - cheesesteak, Washington - pork, Cincinnati - chili, Milwaukee - cheese, Pittsburgh - steel, St. Louis - bad beer, Denver - weed, Phoenix - dust, San Diego - not a real place, San Francisco - Rice-a-Roni

Minneapolis - lutefisk,

It is the "local" food most talked about, but I have lived here many years (in three stints - the latest since 1991)and I have never even seen it.

Oh and the Twins have a special place here for winning two championships, but it is a Vikings town.

Go through the list of Major League cities and try to find any other than those four who haven't switched preferences over the years.

Other than when they didn't exist, the Browns have been a dominant #1 in Cleveland at least since the mid-to-late 1950s. The Indians and Cavs have traded places at #2, largely based on who's less putrid at any given moment.

The Reds have always been a solid #1 in Cincinnati, though the Bengals have never been really good at the same time the Reds were really bad. The NBA and WHA have come and gone, but it's always been Reds>Bengals>everything else.

Also, Cleveland food is very Slavic. Hungarian and Polish, primarily.

With a sustained run of success over the rest of the decade (and a World Series title or two), the Nationals could very well dent into the Redskins' dominance. The Skins largely copped top honors by default, having at least a 30-year plus edge in residency over the other teams (the Bullets/Wizards moved from Baltimore in 1973, the Capitals began play the following year; neither has been a dominant franchise save for the Bullets in the late '70s). You can make a good argument that the D.C. area has more interest in college basketball (Maryland men and women, Georgetown, George Mason and to a lesser extent George Washington and American) than in the NBA or NHL. College football interest should also increase in 2014, after Maryland leaves the putrid ACC for the more high-profile Big Ten.

SAN FRANCISCO: I lived there from 1995-2000 and at the time it was definitely a 49ers town, even though the Giants were better and demographically it would seem that San Franciscans would be more partial to genteel, intellectual baseball than macho, warlike football. Obviously since I left SF, lots of things have happened -- PacBell/AT&T Park was built (I was there for one season) and the Giants won two World Series. So I wouldn't be surprised if SF is now a baseball town. But the Niners are good again...


Oh, SF is most definitely the Giants' town now. Even with the Niners going to the Super Bowl, the enthusiasm didn't come close to the Giants' run in 2012.

OAKLAND: Gotta be the Raiders, even though the A's have been more successful and never left for Los Angeles. A's fans are great, but not numerous. Casual/front-running baseball fans probably prefer the Giants now.

The Raiders have their die hard core group, but if I had to rank the East Bay's preferences right now:

Giants>A's>Warriors>Raiders

How do their tv ratings compare to the Seahawks? I'd be surprised if it's close.

Ratings and average attendance are horrible ways of measuring popularity though. They depend far too heavily on relative scarcity of the games. I mean, if we are going to play that game, baseball is going to come in dead last almost everywhere.

How much will being a Big Ten doormat help the program, Terp?

"iirc, the phillies own the channel that broadcasts the bulk of their games, so unless i'm missing something, their revenue may very well be maxed out there."

No,the bulk of the Phillies games are on a Comcast-owned sports channel. Comcast does not own the Phillies(yet).

Probably safe to say that aside from a few cities - Los Angeles, Boston, New York,Toronto, St. Louis, maybe Cincinnati - football is going to be king.

Baltimore - crab cakes, Boston - chowdah, New York - bagels, Tampa Bay - the Early Bird special, Toronto - moose, Chicago - wind, Cleveland - regret, Detroit - bullets, Kansas City - barbecue, Minneapolis - lutefisk, Dallas - beef, Houston - more beef, Los Angeles - self-satisfaction, Oakland - can't afford food, Seattle - coffee, Atlanta - grits, Miami - mojitos, Philly - cheesesteak, Washington - pork, Cincinnati - chili, Milwaukee - cheese, Pittsburgh - steel, St. Louis - bad beer, Denver - weed, Phoenix - dust, San Diego - not a real place, San Francisco - Rice-a-Roni

San Diego - fish tacos

St. Louis - toasted ravioli

Chicago - deep dish pizza

Milwaukee - brats

Toronto - poutine? Or is that just a Montreal thing? Tim Horton's?

Pittsburgh - stuffed sandwiches

Cleveland - pierogies

Dallas - Tex-Mex?

San Francisco - Italian? Sushi?

I think the most accurate way to put it would be that Chicago is a baseball town but its most popular team is the Bears because fan loyalty isn't split between two teams like it is with baseball.

That's my assessment, supported by the non-binding Moradini-Kittle-Ditka Test I conducted a few years back.

SF - mission burrito?

I lived in San Francisco in the mid-90's, and the 49ers were BY FAR the biggest franchise around. Similar to the Redskins in DC. So I find it fascinating that the Giants have surpassed them.

There's a lot of great food in San Francisco, but it's hard to identify a food that's strongly identified with the city. Maybe cioppino? Sourdough?

With a sustained run of success over the rest of the decade (and a World Series title or two), the Nationals could very well dent into the Redskins' dominance. The Skins largely copped top honors by default, having at least a 30-year plus edge in residency over the other teams (the Bullets/Wizards moved from Baltimore in 1973, the Capitals began play the following year; neither has been a dominant franchise save for the Bullets in the late '70s). You can make a good argument that the D.C. area has more interest in college basketball (Maryland men and women, Georgetown, George Mason and to a lesser extent George Washington and American) than in the NBA or NHL. College football interest should also increase in 2014, after Maryland leaves the putrid ACC for the more high-profile Big Ten.

The Redskins moved to DC in 1937, and from that day forward there hasn't been a single year that they haven't "owned" the city, even when they were the NFL's laughingstock in the 50's and again in the Snyder era. The Griffs/Shorts/Lerners never seriously challenged that supremacy until 2012, and even during the 70's when the Bullets were among the elite of the NBA, they only sold out their regular season games against the Knicks, Celtics and Lakers. Maryland basketball suffers from the same problem that any team other than the Redskins does: It's way too dependent on team success. For the Nats to make a breakthrough, it's going to take a long run of playoff appearances and at least one or two championships.

I think the most accurate way to put it would be that Chicago is a baseball town but its most popular team is the Bears because fan loyalty isn't split between two teams like it is with baseball.

Given the lack of fan support for the White Sox, I don't see this as that good an argument.

I lived in San Francisco in the mid-90's, and the 49ers were BY FAR the biggest franchise around. Similar to the Redskins in DC. So I find it fascinating that the Giants have surpassed them.

I can't see what's so surprising about a team with 5 recent Super Bowls dominating a city's attention, or what's unusual about that team being given a run for its money by a team that's won 2 World Series in 3 years, playing in a jewel of a ballpark. That sort of transition could happen just about anywhere.

Toronto - poutine? Or is that just a Montreal thing? Tim Horton's?

Poutine is Quebec-based.

For Toronto cuisine, it's REALLY hard to nail down as it's the most diverse city in the world, and with that comes an insane selection of food choices.
You could easily make a case for Chinese/Thai/(Other Asian), Italian or Greek (the Danforth area is a Mediterranean feast), West Indian (especially during Caribana).
But if you really had to pick one, I'd default to Tim Hortons coffee & donut/bagel.

There's a lot of great food in San Francisco, but it's hard to identify a food that's strongly identified with the city. Maybe cioppino? Sourdough?

Very much Sourdough in my opinion. But yeah SF is my favorite city inthe world and the food is great.

I think the most accurate way to put it would be that Chicago is a baseball town but its most popular team is the Bears because fan loyalty isn't split between two teams like it is with baseball.

Given the lack of fan support for the White Sox, I don't see this as that good an argument.

I'd personally split the difference...

I would agree with Jim - Chicago is first and foremost a Bears town. No team gets as much and as deep city-wide attention as the Bears, and when/if the Bears are good - it tends to outshine everyone else.

Once upon the time - and frankly, on the way if not all the way back since Dollar Bill passed - the Hawks were somewhat immune to this... They had their loyal - and for hockey in the US, deep enough - niche and nothing disturbed that. I get the sense that over the last few seasons - the support has gotten wider, but I'm not so sure the depth is all the way back (probably getting there, though).

The Bulls are city's favorite bandwagon team; once Jordan left, the UC became pretty much a place for people to entertain clients during basketball season.

I think that if you were to strip out the 'scene' folks -- I would suspect that the Sox and Cubs really aren't all that far apart in terms of support (and I say this as a Cubs fan), it's just that virtually every 'casual' fan in the city tends to go north side. My bet would be that if you had some sort of litmus test -- let's say, name the everyday lineup, starting rotation, manager, and say -- top 3 prospects; the Cubs and Sox probably come out near even on the numbers. It's really more a matter of the fact that pink hatters, trixies, and frat boys head to wrigleyville almost exclusively (and I say that as a not-completely reformed frat boy).

It pains me, but I guess I'd say that Chicago is probably best described as a football town... not to the extent it overshadows baseball, but if you had to rank 'em - hard not to put the NFL at #1.

Oddly enough, despite tons of effort by Northwestern to make the Wildcats 'Chicago's B1G10 team'... despite the fact that Evanston is very easily accessible by CTA, despite playing games occasionally at Soldier Field and Wrigley (with a regular series supposedly to come), despite a relatively decent number (for its size - NU is only about 8k undergrad, with the Law and Med campuses in Chicago adding another k or so) of alums in the area, and despite having a pretty solid ~15 years now of fielding competitive -- or better -- teams, Wildcat football just hasn't caught fire. It's actually rather difficult to find a regular NU bar to watch fb and bb -- but you'd have no problem finding ND, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan/MSU, IU, et al watering holes.

The Niners have spent most of the past decade being terrible, bigoted and whining about public money for a stadium before decamping to Santa Clara. It's a Giants town now and will be for years to come.

As for food, the burrito, sourdough, cioppino, Joe's Special, crab Louie, crab in general, and the martini are pretty good food items that come from San Francisco. Better than many other cities!

Baltimore - crab cakes, Boston - chowdah, New York - bagels, Tampa Bay - the Early Bird special, Toronto - moose, Chicago - wind, Cleveland - regret, Detroit - bullets, Kansas City - barbecue, Minneapolis - lutefisk, Dallas - beef, Houston - more beef, Los Angeles - self-satisfaction, Oakland - can't afford food, Seattle - coffee, Atlanta - grits, Miami - mojitos, Philly - cheesesteak, Washington - pork, Cincinnati - chili, Milwaukee - cheese, Pittsburgh - steel, St. Louis - bad beer, Denver - weed, Phoenix - dust, San Diego - not a real place, San Francisco - Rice-a-Roni

This is such a bad list that it cannot be left uncommented on.


Baltimore - crab (not sure if crab cakes, since crab boils are just as, if not more, imitiably regional)
Boston - chowder is not a Boston-particular dish. If anything, more identified with Portsmouth. I'd say, however, that clams in general are very Boston. But not the chowder preparation.
New York - bagels are a fine choice; historically, oysters (believe it or not).
Tampa Bay - grouper sandwich
Toronto - [Dont know, have never been, but wouldn't be surprised if something from its immigrant communities]
Chicago - vienna beef; could be italian beef.
Cleveland - doesn't have a regional delicacy I'm aware of, but slavic cuisine in general.
Detroit - middle eastern food. Mmmmm, Shatila.
Kansas City - barbecue or steak
Minneapolis - personally the folks from there I know eat way more hotdish than lutefisk
Dallas - steak,
Houston - sort of lies at the intersection of many food traditions. Chili, mexican. I understand from my friend there's are surprisingly strong Cajun influence there now.
Los Angeles - fast food / burgers
Oakland - I think we can make an allowance for East Bay in general, right? In that case, locavorism
Seattle - coffee
Atlanta - I actually think of Atlanta more as the locus of chain dining than a focus on southern food. Though if anything, soul food.
Miami - latin food.
Philly - cheesesteak / or diner food
Washington - Another tough one, as it lies at the intersection of lots of regional cuisines but isn't really whole-hog part of any. Ethiopian food?
Cincinnati - chili or custard
Milwaukee - fish fry. Sausage.
Pittsburgh - polish food
St. Louis - toasted ravioli or the concrete/blizzard
Denver - too young to have a cuisine. if anything, big game?
Phoenix - border food / sonoran cuisine.
San Diego - fish tacos
San Francisco - bread (i'm partial to dungeness crab, but that's just me I think)

With a sustained run of success over the rest of the decade (and a World Series title or two), the Nationals could very well dent into the Redskins' dominance.

With a sustained run of success over the rest of the decade (and a World Series title or two), the Nationals any major league franchise excepting, probably, the Blue Jays could very well dent into the Redskins' the currently dominant franchise's dominance.

As an addendum to the previously mentioned M-K-D study, here's the most popular license plates for the five Chicagoland professional sports teams (in the order they became available). Anecdotally, the top team is not surprising, as I see far more Hawks plates than any of the others.

Blackhawks 7,266
Cubs 3,771
Bears 3,026
Bulls 1,083
Sox 1,862