I was thinking about which team should actually move to Los Angeles, and conversely, which city of the three could most afford to lose a pro team, based on its metropolitan population data. So I collected population data* on every metro area** with a big four (professional ultimate didn't make the cut, unfortunately) professional sports team, put in on a scatter plot with how many professional sports teams the metro area currently supports (including the Rams' move). Then I put in a line of best fit model to illustrate the data. The results*** are as follows:
 |
| Data Reflects Post-Rams Move. Click to Enlarge. |
** For purposes of presentation and avoiding extrapolation, the trendline excludes New York City (20.63, 9) and Los Angeles (15.06, 7)
***For more analysis on the scatter plot, there is a discussion notes section at the bottom of this post.
***For more analysis on the scatter plot, there is a discussion notes section at the bottom of this post.
A quick look at the above scatter plot shows that, based on metro population alone, of the three teams that were considering moving to Los Angeles, the NFL should have given the Oakland Raiders first priority in moving, as the Bay area currently houses about two more sports teams (6) than the metro population in the model would predict (3.99). In fact, of all the metro areas in the country, the SF/Bay Area should be the first metro area of any to lose a professional sports team, as it currently has the highest difference (+2.01) in actual vs projected teams it is able to support.
Meanwhile, while the St. Louis Rams (since this data reflects the Rams already back in LA) were a strong choice to move back to LA, they were not as strong a choice as the Raiders. Prior to the move, St. Louis had 3 pro sports teams vs. a projected (2.02), or a differential of +0.98, which isn't as high as the Bay Area. That said, the numbers show that two teams in St. Louis does seem the appropriate number for St. Louis to have. In fact, of all the metros that had three teams, St. Louis was the second best choice to lose a team, only behind Tampa.
Conversely, San Diego should absolutely NOT lose the Chargers, based on these numbers. Of all the metros with only two sports teams, San Diego has the second highest projection of number of teams it can support (2.50) based on population, trailing only Seattle. Furthermore, if San Diego were to lose the Chargers and drop to a one team metro, San Diego would become the U.S. metro* with THE GREATEST need to add another team, with a (-1.50) actual - projected difference.
*that currently has at least one team
Obviously the relocation of a professional sports team and a city's ability to support teams is much more complex than simple population numbers, as a number of other factors--proximity to other metros, number of transplants, climate, culture of city, socioeconomic status of city, team ownership, media presence, among many others--come into play. So this is all likely a moot point.
But simple population numbers suggest that the NFL got it wrong. While the St. Louis Rams were a solid choice, the Oakland Raiders should have been the first team to return to LA, and they should definitely have had preference over the San Diego Chargers.
But simple population numbers suggest that the NFL got it wrong. While the St. Louis Rams were a solid choice, the Oakland Raiders should have been the first team to return to LA, and they should definitely have had preference over the San Diego Chargers.
Hopefully the Raiders did a simple data analysis very similar to mine in their pitch to move to LA. Then again, they're the Raiders, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they failed to do so.
#gopats
Sincerely,
-JTF
***Discussion Notes of Scatter Plot:
-The red diamonds indicate Canadian metro areas which predictably have less pro teams than projected, since, ya know, they're in Canada.
- A line of best fit including New York and Los Angeles (y = 0.417x + 1.1484) projects that LA should have about 7.2 pro teams, when prior to the move it had 6, and it now has exactly 7. So this model definitely supported LA picking up another professional team, whereas picking up two teams would be justified, but not necessary.
- There were two top-30 populous metros that had zero pro sports teams, despite the fact that the model projected them having two or more teams: Riverside, CA (projected 3.21 teams) and Las Vegas (1.96). Riverside's lack of pro teams likely stems from its close proximity to Los Angeles and its relatively low socioeconomic status. Vegas, well... probably because it's Vegas.
