Having no action or moves to discuss in this off-season, I refuse to write about this ridiculous lockout. I then want to propose something different, which I have already started to write about several times before, but now I finally got some courage to finish. The proposal is trying to discuss how (and if) the market size of each city can influence the NFL teams. I always wanted to research and investigate this matter to verify if there is a relationship between Market size x Championship wins.
To start this conversation, let me explain how I built our table. First I cataloged from what city was the champion franchise of all the Super Bowls. For example, the Colts won the Super Bowl two times.. one as Baltimore Colts and the other as Indianapolis Colts. So the wins were divided one for each city. In New York, the Giants have been champions three times and the Jets one, therefore we have four wins overall in the table cell for this city. The same goes for NBA, that for example the Lakers won the league 16 times, but 11 being from Los Angeles and 5 from Minneapolis.
From this, I researched the information about all the titles of each American sport in each of the cities concerned, since some cities are dominant in some sports and not in others. Enriching our data this way, I ignored the cities where there is no NFL franchise, like Portland (where the Trail Blazers have won the NBA before), because our focus here is football, NFL and our beloved Denver Broncos.
With the total of all the titles won already tabbed, I looked for data about the population of each city (2010 stats) and their respective GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Then I made a simple division of these numbers to reach an index GDP / Population and have a comparative data set to look over and compare. We then move to the table after the jump:
|17||Green Bay||4||0||0||0||4||104.057||< 40||192.202|
|22||Kansas City||1||0||1||0||2||145.786||< 40||137.187|
|24||Tampa Bay||1||0||0||1||2||335.709||< 40||59.575|
|26||New Orleans||1||0||0||0||1||343.829||< 40||58.168|
¹ considering Anaheim as LA
² adding Raleigh to Charlotte
³ for the cities that I couldn't find the GDP value, I assumed 20 for math purpose
Reading all these stats, we can note a dominance in at least one sport in cities with high GDP and/or population. There are exceptions such as Oakland, whose their NFL franchise has been from Los Angeles for a long time before, and they can explore the market there. Green Bay is a very low populated city and they have a low GDP level, but they have one of the best managements in NFL, so they figure as four-time champions. Other exceptions are Kansas City, Phoenix and San Diego that have large population and a good GDP index, but few titles won.
We must remember that there are some franchises installed for less time in certain cities, as well others are more traditional in other cities. We know therefore that none of these factories are decisive in terms of victory or loss for any team. It’s showed good when we have Pittsburgh appearing five spots above Philadelphia for example.
But even if it isn’t determinant, surely the market size has some influence on each team. The salary cap is here precisely to try to minimize the differences and make the NFL a more balanced league. It yields largest TV contracts and such other contracts more profitable for everybody.
I therefore propose some questions for us to discuss together and try to reach some conclusions on this subject. Is the salary cap enough to rank the teams better? To what extent does the market size of each city influence teams’ wins or losses? And how about Denver... do we have a market size according to our teams? Or is it higher or lower than it should? What can be done about all of this? What conclusions can we reach from all this data?