Talk:United States cities with teams from four major league sports/Archive 1

Los Angeles

The article states that "Chicago is the only metro area to have a championship in all five leagues." Los Angeles does not currently host all five professional sports, but the city has won a championship in all five leagues. The most recent for each league: LA Raiders (1983), LA Angels (2002), LA Lakers (2002), Anaheim Ducks (2006), and LA Galaxy (2005). Berserkeley 06:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore. Los Angeles Rams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:C102:31D0:0:0:0:1 (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

But they won that championship in Saint Louis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:C201:39CD:E4D7:90C0:1213:8A0 (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither of which matter. The point is that teams won titles while representing Los Angeles. Just because the Raiders moved back to Oakland later doesn't change that they were an LA team when they win that title. oknazevad (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

NFL Toronto article cited and status of Foxborough

Those who bring up the title of this page in reference to Toronto present valid points. I agree with them. However, regardless of whether or not I did, the link expressing support for the NFL going to Toronto goes to an article appearing in the Hoosier Gazette, a satirical news site. Essentially, it is The Onion but specifically geared towards Indiana and not staffed by snarky university hipsters. Would you cite The Onion for an article on here? I think not (well, unless it were actually about The Onion).

Also, for those who doubt the status of Foxborough, it is an actual town. Unlike other regions, here in New England (well, at least in Southern New England), all land is incorporated. Foxborough has its own charter, government, police force, etc. Sure, its population may only be around 16,000, and confusingly, the Census Bureau also lists a CDP called Foxborough, but this CDP is entirely within the town limits and is part of the town. Therefore, it is a suburb. In fact, some may consider it a suburb of both Boston and Providence. EmanBos 09:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)EmanBos

State size information

Washington State is not the most populous state without all four major league teams within a metro area with its territory (hope that's not too confusing), North Carolina is. There is no MLB team in Charlotte (yet), Raleigh/Durham, Greensboro/Winston-Salem or Hampton Roads, Va (NE corner of state is in metro area). Atlanta and Washington are closest MLB teams. Made change accordingly.--Bjeversole 10:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

New York NHL teams

Forgive me, but isn't New York's NHL teams known as the Rangers and the Islanders. Possibly saying NY has 3 NHL franchises within it's "fan range" might be more reasonable Tawker 07:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Devils, but they probably play in Newark. Newark is so close to New York that you can see the skyline, and is an easy, quick drive. Newark's airport is considered by most travel websites and airlines to be a New York airport, because it's so close.

New York controversy

The information on New York City is extremely misleading. Of the 9 purported New York City teams, only 4 actually play in the city, while 2 are New Jersey teams that just call themselves 'New York', and 3 are just teams that happen to play in neighboring areas, without identifying with the city in any way.--Pharos 20:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• It is not misleading at all. The Meadowlands are a stone's throw from Manhattan. The Meadowlands is closer to Manhattan than Auburn Hills is to downtown Detroit. Kingturtle 02:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • True, but it also has to do with how each metro area defines itself. The Meadowlands may very well be closer to Manhattan than Auburn Hills is to Eight Mile, but people from Auburn Hills don't call themselves "Auburn Hills-ites," they're Detroiters. People from Jersey, however, pride themselves on being from Jersey. And when the media refers to the Big Three, they say "Detroit," not "Detroit, Auburn Hills, and Dearborn." Either way, though, I think the NYC metropolitan area is a bigger gray area than the Detroit metro area, since the NYC 'burbs are spread out among 3 or 4 states.

• It's bloody well confusing, is what it is. How exactly can the "New Jersey" Devils, which play in an arena located in New Jersey, which is not even in the same *state* as New York City, be considered a New York team? The Giants and the Jets choose to use New York in their name even though they don't even play in New York, so it seems to me their inclusion should be debatable, but the teams that don't even claim to be from New York should be right out. The article needs to at least explain the rationale.

Other aspects of the New York City article also refer to the metropolitan area rather than just the five boroughs, so I think the "nine teams" should stay. I'll reword the passage, though, to take account of the point. I agree with Pharos that the previous wording was incorrect. JamesMLane 02:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Newark as a city is practically connected to New York. The only reason there is a controversy is because it is in a separate state. Most "New Jersey" teams (as well as the entire city of Newark) are closer to New York than many other teams are to their own cities. The Rangers play in Arlington, and are names after Texas, not Dallas, but are included in this list because they draw from the city of Dallas. Teams are placed close to large populations so they can make money -- If the Devils wanted to be a "New Jersey Only" team they would play in Trenton or Atlantic City. They play in Newark to draw on the city of New York, so they should be included as a NY Team. Likewise, the Giants, Jets, and Islanders play outside of the actual city because of real estate and size issues (Where, exactly, would you put a football stadium in New York? The suburbs to the West, while still in the state, are of a considerably higher value than those in NJ). Those teams are placed in NJ, but they are close enough to still draw crowds from New York.

It is the New York / New Jersey METRO area that these teams represent.

The Devils are a NYC metro area team but they do market themselves as a New Jersey team though I'm sure they're glad to get fans from Manhattan, Pa. or anywhere else. To say that they should move to Atlantic City or Trenton if they want to appeal to NJ is silly. Newark is NJ's largest city and in the middle of its most populated area hence the best place to attract NJ fans. Also, Madison Square Garden is closer to NJ than Newark is to NYC. Does that mean that the Rangers aren't really a New York team? Are the Milwaukee Brewers not a Wisconsin team because of their proximity to Illinois? Maybe they should move to Green Bay. --D. Monack | talk 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

remove DC?

It is very likely that Washington, D.C. will need to be moved, as recent developments have made that relocation appear somewhat dubious.

It was simply a little political hardball, and the final deals have all been signed as of 29 Dec 2004. I'm going to remove the note at the bottom of page as well. Oknazevad 09:17, 31 Dec 2004 {UTC}

No one put that the Redskins won their last championship in 1992 (the Super Bowl) after the 1991 season.

Dallas designation

• The Dallas designation is misleading. The Rangers have never played in Dallas (they play in nearby Arlington), the Cowboys are moving to Arlington and FC Dallas (Formerly Dallas Burn) now play in Frisco. This should be changed to link to the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex article.--129.118.249.239 12:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New York Baseball teams

The Yankees play in The Bronx, the Mets in Queens. Both are boroughs of New York City, and therefore fully within the city's political borders. Therefore neither team should be italicized for being outside the political boundries of the city.--oknazevad 04:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bay Area issues

Why are all the non-San Francisco teams in the Bay Area marked as playing in a suburb? San Jose is the largest of the three Bay Area cities, and all of the Oakland teams play within the city's limits. Oakland and San Jose aren't suburbs of San Francisco, either. NeoChaosX 00:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good points. While some would argue that San Francisco is the historical center of the region, as you say San Jose has surpased it in population, and Oakland is no suburb. Makes me wonder if the area even belongs on the page, as it refers to specific cities, and The Bay area is a place with three hub cities aranged in a roughly trangular shape.--oknazevad 22:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While the title says 'cities', this article actually specifies metropolitan areas, of which the Bay Area counts as one. (My guess is it uses "cities" since that would make the title shorter.) --NeoChaosX 00:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Laccrosse?

Shouldn't lacrosse be on this list? ColumbusCrew29

No

Toronto inclusion

Should this page be retitled "North American Cities ..." on account of the fact that the NBA, NHL and MLB all have teams from Canada and that Toronto is the 2nd largest North American city without a team in four major sports after Los Angeles?

• So you're suggesting we retitle the article from "U.S. cities with teams from four major sports" to "North American cities with teams from four major sports" when actually there are no cities outside the U.S. with teams from four major sports? That makes no sense. StarryEyes 23:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually you make an excellent point. The title should reflect the content. My point was that Toronto is one of the top five markets in North America and has teams in 3 major sports. The NFL has been on and off in their interest of expanding to Toronto as well. But I see your point. Thanks for your clarification.

• Now that I think about it, shouldn't Toronto be included in this list as well? They DO have teams that play all four sports, and the article isn't about the team that play in the leagues, it's about the teams that play the sports. Hence, Toronto - with the Maple Leafs, the Blue Jays, the Raptors and the Argonauts - should be included.

• It's 4 major leagues, not sports, the title is still a bit misleading. The Patriots play in Foxboro , it is barely outside of boston proper, I think that should be changed. Foxboro is so small that it is almost just a neighborhood rather than a suburb. False Prophet 02:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Toronto should be included. The CFL is simply the major league football league in Canada. It is unfair to exclude Toronto just because it has a CFL team and not an NFL team. (Pwnage8 13:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC))
  • The article isn't about what's "fair". It's simply a listing of U.S./North American cities with teams from the four major sports leagues; it doesn't claim to document any more than that.
    • This article is about the 4 major leagues, not sports, therefore Toronto is included as a footnote due to the presence of the CFL. If they were to get a NFL team, they would be included in this list, just as LA would be.
      • I think the best way to put this issue to bed is simply to state this. If this article were major SPORTS, soccer would have to be ranked 1st as it is the biggest sport on earth. This though is major LEAGUES.

• I deleted the part about the NFL-CFL agreement because in no part of the agreement do they discuss expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.65.133 (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Reorganizing talk page

Hey, been looking at this talk page, and it was a complete mess. I've placed in proper headers for the different discussions that have been going on in this talk page, to organize them and make them easier to find; hope nobody minds this. --NeoChaosX 00:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kansas City

The following should be edited:

Los Angeles, Chicago, the San Francisco Bay Area, Cleveland and Minneapolis-St. Paul are the only metropolitan areas that hosted teams in all four major sports leagues, only to later drop out of the four-sport club.

The city of Kansas City, Missouri also was a four-sport club from 1974 to 1976.

Kansas City Chiefs (NFL): 1963-Present Kansas City Royals (MLB): 1969-Present Kansas City Kings (NBA): 1972-1985 Kansas City Scouts (NHL): 1974-1976

Tampa/Orlando?

I was curious what people thought of Tampa and Orlando. Tampa has the Buccaneers (NFL), Devil Rays (MLB), and Lightning (NHL), and Orlando has the Magic (NBA). The distance between the two is not that great, and I know for example (though this is pure anecdotal evidence) my friend from Tampa (actually Sarasota) is an Orlando Magic fan, so the area has a collective set of sports fans. Was just curious if people thought this was too much of a stretch? Doregasm 03:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.4.186.6 (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

More fully, they're distinct media markets (the real criteria as far as the leagues are concerned), but the NBA does know that they get merchandise and other support sales from the Tampa area. It helps make up for the fact that Orlando has a smaller regualr population on which to draw.oknazevad 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Asterisks

The asterisks on the chart are, frankly, getting ridiculous. Wikitext includes daggers and other distinctive marks. We don't need a string of 8 or 9 asterisks to establish notes. I'll rework for cleanliness. oknazevad 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Toronto Soccer

FYI, not sure if you want to work this into the section about MLS, but since Toronto is mentioned above as an "honourary" 4 sport city (since it has 4 sports, just the football team is in the wrong league), you might also want to mention them again with the 5 sport cities (since they now have an MLS team as well, the Toronto FC). --Maelwys 15:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations tag

Much of the argument in this talk page would be abated if the statements in the article were cited. Although the article is comprised of (mostly) well-written analysis, it does not cite any credible sources, and almost reads like a personal research paper. Every assertion in the article should be supported by a credible source. – Freechild (BoomCha) 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

dubious

As far as I can tell, all teams that are in italics play within city limits. And why are city limits relevant when this article is supposedly based on metropolitan areas. I have severe doubts about the viability of the article unless it focuses one way or another. Otherwise it's just a mish/mash of things synthesized in to something. Carlossuarez46 20:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a misuse of the "dubious" tag which should only be used when factual accuracy is in doubt. Is there any doubt that the italicized teams are not in the relevant city limits? What do you mean about the "viability of the article"? Yes, the article is about metropolitan areas but don't you think it is relevant that some teams don't play within the legal city limits of the core city? Shouldn't this article point out exactly where these teams play? That's all the italics do. --D. Monack | talk 22:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely misuse of dubious tag; I'm pulling it and clarifying with a rephrase (which is what I think you wanted anyway). The use of italics I have concerns about, but you're reaching claiming the whole article's a waste. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 22:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's absolutely clear that the Dallas Cowboys' statium is within city limits, not of Dallas but of Irving, Texas. Irving is part of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex Also, why aren't the San Jose sharks italicized on the same basis? They play in San Jose, not San Francisco, and why is the SF Bay Area the only "Metropolitan area" linked? If there is relevance to this article there needs to be consistency; inconsistency looks like POV and leads to the the isn't Orlando part of Tampa questions above. It's clear that either you need to do it by city or by area, and in the first instance you can have your italics, they mean something, in the other, whether or not the team plays in the main city or not is irrelevant, and would require either italicizing the Sharks, or the rest of SF's teams as San Jose is bigger than SF now, so it's the main city in the bay area. Carlossuarez46 04:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that consistency is required in this table. San Francisco Bay Area should be changed to just San Francisco or perhaps San Jose and the relevant teams italicized. Also, Minneapolis-St. Paul should just be Minneapolis with the Wild italicized. --D. Monack | talk 18:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Consistency for italics

How is a metropolitan area's "core cities" defined for the purposes of this list? According to the header a team gets italicized if they play in a city that is not one of the "core cities" but offers no objective definition of "core city". For example, San Jose is lumped in with San Francisco and Oakland as all being "core cities" of the metro area, yet according to the Census Bureau, San Jose is in a seperate metro area. By the same token, Arlington is being italicized although it is clearly a "core city" of the Dallas-Ft Worth-Arlington metro area, again as defined by the Census bureau. For another example not strictly tied to Census Bureau definitions, Glendale is italicized although it is the 3rd largest city in the Phoenix metro area, is adjacent to Phoenix, and both teams play in facilities less than 3 miles outside of Phoenix city boundaries.

This business of picking and choosing what suits the particular editor best makes no sense. Either a solid, objective criteria needs to be defined, or the idea of italicizing "suburbs" needs to go. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I gotta disagree. What constitutes a the dominant city and what is a suburb is pretty obvious. Just look at your local television stations. They'll always identify themselves as based in the core city. Now I've never been to the Valley of the Sun, but from my understanding of friends who have, its a fairly centralized metro area, centered on Phoenix, so it serves as the core city. At the very least, the italics help the reader understand that the Coyotes, despite their name, don't actually play within the city limits of Phoenix.

That said, each metro area is different. The Bay Area (where I have been) is a very sprawling place, but the nature of SF, Oakland and SJ as the major centers is rather well established, as evidenced by infrastructure design and traffic patterns. Can't really comment on D-FW, having never been there nor knowing anyone who's spent significant time there. However it's usually called "Dallas-Fort Worth," with no mention of Arlington, such as at the airport. Also, that 4 out of 5 teams call themselves "Dallas" tells me where the teams identify with.oknazevad 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this article should choose a certain census or TV market criteria (ie, [MSA],[CSA],[Nielsen DMA] ,etc) and stick with it, and link to the appropriate page in the article to explain what the "markets" are in the article. Dletter 13:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Championship years in chart

I've often thought that the inclusion of the years each team won their last championship was a truly trivial inclusion and a distraction from the main focus of the article. I don't see any relevance. I really don't think it is needed, so I'm going to be bold and take them out. oknazevad (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"U.S." vs. "North American"

If we're going to continue having a section discussing Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, then we need to rename this article "North American cities..." If we want to keep it as "U.S. cities..." then we really should drop that section. 68.62.16.149 (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Oklahoma City Thunder"

Why has this NBA team been excluded? Ideally it should be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephamathew (talk • contribs) 16:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? This article is about cities with teams in all four major team sports. OKC only has an NBA team. That's nothing special. You may be thinking of the list at Major professional sports teams of the United States and Canada. oknazevad (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Toronto is the 4th largest city in NA not the 4th largest without an nfl team

city population is about the same as Chicago (3rd largest) and metro area can't be compared to the CSA of American cities because the area and boundaries are a lot different. CSA for Toronto would the golden horseshoe and that's right next to Chicago as the 4th largest metro city.Grmike (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)grmike

Um, did you forget about Mexico City, which at around 12 million (plus suburbs) is easily the largest city in North America? You are right that it isn't the fourth largest city without an NFL team, though. It's third, with Mexico City at number one, LA at two and Toronto third. (Montreal is fourth, IINM.) I'll fix that. oknazevad (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove Phoenix and/or Atlanta off of the list

Because 1 of the hockey Teams will be moving next year, so in the future remove those city/cities and put them in the former list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.235.61 (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If these purported moves happen, (and frankly, rumors are notoriously unreliable) then, and only then, will the team(s) be removed. I want to see your source.oknazevad (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"Principal City"?

In the San Fransisco Bay area, the Twin Cities and DFW, all the multiple cities in that are considered the "Principal City" per their radio station identifications, their newsmedia and the Census bureau. Principal city should be renamed "largest city" or there should be an acknowledgment of both cities being the "principal city". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.45.236 (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's how I would redo the article. Check the airport codes and media outlets of said cities. If a majority of them identify more than one city, then the metro area can be defined as having more than one core city. For example, if you go to Dallas-Fort Worth's media outlets, they rarely identify with Dallas or Fort Worth alone. It's always both cities. Even the airport code for the Metroplex is "DFW", or "Dallas-Fort Worth". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:C102:31D0:0:0:0:7 (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Championships by city

Whatever, just take it off.

Inland Empire

What exactly qualifies as a metropolitan area, because according to the table of Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas, the Inland Empire would be the largest without any teams as it is 13th on the list and Vegas is 30th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.147.238 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate page? Original research?

I actually think that most of this information belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. But, I'm pretty shocked that this page exists in its current form. Who decided that this is an interesting classification? Who decided that there are only four major league sports? The article linked to lists 10 major leagues (and that article has its own problem, for example listing the CFL as an "other notable league" when it is the second most important league in Canada -- but it already has an OR template). And who decided this classification was interesting? Yes, the raw data is probably not OR but the organization is. Somebody needs to come up with a reason why this page belongs instead of it just being a section in some other page.

To clarify, I am not saying this information should be deleted. The information is probably useful. It's the organization and assumptions that are the problem. I'm adding an OR template. RoyLeban (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the article

There were too many errors in the article. I fixed a bunch of them.

• Most of them were related to the definition of "city" or "metro area" as used in this article. In general the article has mostly used the United States primary statistical area definition, since the alternatives have clear deficiencies. MSA by itself isn't used because the Inland Empire would be the largest MSA w/o a team, even though they are clearly associated with LA. Media markets are difficult to use on WP since the boundaries of the markets themselves are copyrighted and therefore cannot be used in a WP article.
  • Using PSA has the following implications:
    • Washington and Baltimore are combined. This article treated them separately so I corrected the article to combine them.
    • Atlanta's PSA extends into the state of Alabama. Therefore Alabama cannot be the largest state w/o part of a metro area that has a team, this distinction instead belongs to Iowa.
• There were a few other errors.
  • To end the debate about "core city/core cities", which isn't even defined, I removed mention of them from the main table. Instead, the city is listed if it is not listed in the team name itself.
  • The paragraph saying that the Austin TX metro area is the third-largest w/o a team is directly contradicted by the paragraph above it which says Hampton Roads (Norfolk etc. VA-NC) is the third-largest w/o a team. I removed the info for Austin since that paragraph was about the city proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.216.96 (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the article again

Since there were objections to using the PSA definition of "city" then I changed the article to use the MSA definition. Again, this has the following implications:

• The Inland Empire, not LV, is the largest metro area without a team.
• The entire San Francisco Bay Area is not one MSA but multiple MSAs. San Francisco and Oakland are part of one MSA while San Jose is part of another. Since San Jose has an NHL team while Oakland/SF has NFL, MLB & NBA, neither metro area has teams in all four sports. Therefore they are removed from the main table.

Also, my corrections that are not related to the definition of "city" or "metro area" were vandalously reverted. I intend to revert back since it is obvious that the editor who disagreed with that edit only disagreed with the "city"-definition aspect of it, and did not give reasons for opposing the other edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.216.96 (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Major league cleanup

We really need to clean up this article. The major inconsistency is the definition of city, which for this article's purposes, is defined as:

"the entire metropolitan area"

but many of the facts and stats stated in the article depend on differing definitions:

• Some use media markets,
• some use Metropolitan Statistical Areas,
• some use Combined Statistical Areas,

and even though it is clearly insufficient to serve our purposes here,

• some even use the core city limits!

I've already proposed using either MSA or CSA because those can be reliably sourced while the media market maps cannot (due to copyright issues), but apparently some people are in disagreement with my edits.

Any input on this is appreciated. --96.32.138.125 (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils

@Yosemiter: How can a New Jersey Team be considered an NYC Team? SportsFan007 (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

@SportsFan007: Because it is the New York metropolitan area. Same as the New York Giants, Jets, and Red Bulls, which are all in New Jersey (and in fact is 1 mile down the road from the Red Bulls). Yosemiter (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

@Yosemiter: Ah ok, that makes sense, thank you for your response!!! SportsFan007 (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007