What is the best sports state?

This morning, I was wondering which state had the best sports. Not the best sports city, but the best state. I was thinking that if you were to rank the states by sports, Michigan would be pretty high. With the exception of the Lions, pro teams in Michigan have had periods of great success. On top of that, college sports in Michigan are far better than college sports in most other states. I did a little searching and found this:



The map above ranks states by winning percentage. There were some basic qualifications, such as 1) standard win percentage, rather that championships or native sons of anything else. 2) states who have hosted at least 200 seasons, combined, of teams that played in any/all of the following leagues: MLB, NFL, NBA, and one of the six largest NCAA conferences in football and/or basketball. (I counted Notre Dame's football program as well.) From there the the author says, "Of our 50 states, 33 met these criteria (as did Washington, D.C.)."

According the map, Michigan ranks 8th. But I'm not sure I like this method. Above Michigan are Alabama, Kentucky, Nebraska, Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Tennessee. Most of these states are pulled up by college programs. In some cases a single sport. Alabama and Auburn are pulled up by college football, but outside of college football it is a rather dull state for sports (unless Izzo goes to Alabama). Kentucky is just like Alabama, except it is Kentucky and Louisville basketball that put the state at #2. Nebraska? Really? It's Nebraska football and nothing else. You probably need to take into account championships, but even then, I think Michigan looks good for the best sports state, or at least the top three. The diversity of sport is great in Michigan, and the state has hosted a lot of success. Am I wrong?

Massachusetts hands down. That state is so spoiled with championships.

steveschneider wrote:Massachusetts hands down. That state is so spoiled with championships.

I was actually thinking MA as well. Largely because of pro sports. But when you account for college sports, MA takes a hit. I would argue Michigan has a better mix of the two. If this was about which state has the best pro sports, MA would have to be #1.

Hawaii. Watch in paradise.

Turtleneck wrote:

I was actually thinking MA as well. Largely because of pro sports. But when you account for college sports, MA takes a hit. I would argue Michigan has a better mix of the two. If this was about which state has the best pro sports, MA would have to be #1.

MA had a Super Bowl this year and their team won the MLS championship.

If you go back the last ten years they have a title in every major pro sport (baseball, basketball, football, hockey and soccer). That's crazy.

Their fans are die hard, their venues are unbelievable (Fenway is the best park I've ever been in) and their teams deliver.

Also, Harvard and UMASS are tournament worthy bball teams the last couple of years and aren't there a few schools good at college hockey?

steveschneider wrote:

MA had a Super Bowl this year and their team won the MLS championship.

If you go back the last ten years they have a title in every major pro sport (baseball, basketball, football, hockey and soccer). That's crazy.

Their fans are die hard, their venues are unbelievable (Fenway is the best park I've ever been in) and their teams deliver.

Also, Harvard and UMASS are tournament worthy bball teams the last couple of years and aren't there a few schools good at college hockey?

I previously agreed with you that when it comes to pro sports, MA wins hands down. As for college sports, MI wins hands down. Being tournament worthy is a far cry from what sports fans come to expect from a program like MSU. As for football, MA has two DI-A programs. Boston College and UMass. I'm not impressed. As for college hockey, it is not something I would include but I see that as possibly being a draw? MI is not short on success in college hockey. I think WMU and FSU are the only two college hockey programs in MI to not have won at least one national title. MTU in the 60s, NMU in the 80s, LSSU in the 90s, and UM and MSU throughout. I do not know what championships look like between college and pro sports in MA and MI, but if you go by the winning % method mentioned above, MI tops MA.

Quick scan so probably not exact.

MA leads MI in pro championships 35-18
Patriots 4-0 over Lions
Red Wings 11-6 over Bruins
Red Sox 8-4 over Tigers
Celtics 17-3 over Pistons

MI leads MA 27-12 in college championships
MI is 5-0 in CFB (modern era)
MI is 3-1 in CBB
MI is 19-11 in college hockey

Turtleneck wrote:Quick scan so probably not exact.

MA leads MI in pro championships 35-18
Patriots 4-0 over Lions
Red Wings 11-6 over Bruins
Red Sox 8-4 over Tigers
Celtics 17-3 over Pistons

MI leads MA 27-12 in college championships
MI is 5-0 in CFB (modern era)
MI is 3-1 in CBB
MI is 19-11 in college hockey

LOL you listed the Lions SB Championships...

CheesySpartan wrote:

LOL you listed the Lions SB Championships...

CheesySpartan wrote:

LOL you listed the Lions SB Championships...

I only listed Super Bowl and nothing pre-merger. Was that wrong? Should I have not done that?

Including those would make in 35-22 with a 4-4 tie between Patriots and Lions.

Edit: If you I include all CFB, it is 34-20 in college sports.

Easily it's Michigan or Pennsylvania.

Eliminate any state without a major college team or is missing representation in any of the four major pro sports leagues. Can't be the best if you are missing one of the major sports leagues (including college).

I think from that pool, you have: Arizona, California, Colorado, Texas, Florida, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and New York (add any if that's not all of them).

Georgia's only great team has really been the Braves, with UGA football being good but never really great outside of 1980.

I can't think of sustained success for sports in Arizona.

Colorado was nice in the late 90s, but hasn't had much outside of that.

Ohio has OSU...but good lord, their pro sports are probably the most depressing in the country (Cleveland alone is a major weight, but Cincinnati isn't much better).

Florida has some great college programs, but the pro sports scene there is miserable and inconsistent.

New York has terrible college programs, the Knicks are almost always bad, as are the Islanders. The Rangers have only gone all the way once in our lifetimes, and then you have the despair that is Buffalo sports. 

Texas has the Cowboys and Longhorns for football, but really not much else besides one good year for the Rangers, Stars, and Rockets.

Minnesota...only the Twins have brought them championships. That was also a long time ago, and the Gophers are pretty lackluster in both major NCAA sports.

Illinois. The Cubs are fun to party at, but it's a whole lot of "meh" in everything except the Bulls and recently the Blackhawks. The Illini are "meh" as an athletic program, too.

Pennsylvania and Michigan both house major college programs that have been successful in major sports. Both have teams in each pro sports league, and just about all their pro teams have won championships in the modern era (I think except for the Eagles and Lions?).

Depends on what you value more between college and pro. Michigan's better for college sports, but the Lions really bring them down when you're looking at the pro teams. I'd probably go with Michigan, just because there's more NBA, NHL, and MLB success in addition to two better college programs...just enough to overcome the weight that is the Lions

New York is a terrible sports state if you prefer college over pros. CFB season sucks because all NY has to offer is Buffalo, Syracuse, and Army. No rivalry games and those three teams are all bad.

Guys. Why are we debating this. UM has Harbs now. We win. F MA.

Turtleneck wrote:New York is a terrible sports state if you prefer college over pros. CFB season sucks because all NY has to offer is Buffalo, Syracuse, and Army. No rivalry games and those three teams are all bad.

I think you are putting too much weight into college sports a lot of the country including the east coast is primarily interested in pro sports.

The south, the midwest and LA are college sports markets. If you like college sports then yes Michigan is going to be better for you than the east coast. Your real question should be what are the best college sports states.

steveschneider wrote:

MA had a Super Bowl this year and their team won the MLS championship.

If you go back the last ten years they have a title in every major pro sport (baseball, basketball, football, hockey and soccer). That's crazy.

Their fans are die hard, their venues are unbelievable (Fenway is the best park I've ever been in) and their teams deliver.

Also, Harvard and UMASS are tournament worthy bball teams the last couple of years and aren't there a few schools good at college hockey?

There fans are NOT diehards. Aside from the Sox, they are the very definition of bandwagon.



The only thing I don't get is how every state has a winning record. Thats impossible. Especially when you factor in the Washington generals

Turtleneck wrote:Quick scan so probably not exact.

MA leads MI in pro championships 35-18
Patriots 4-0 over Lions
Red Wings 11-6 over Bruins
Red Sox 8-4 over Tigers
Celtics 17-3 over Pistons

MI leads MA 27-12 in college championships
MI is 5-0 in CFB (modern era)
MI is 3-1 in CBB
MI is 19-11 in college hockey

Uhhh. We've lost to BC is the bowl game and once in bball. No idea what uofm has done

steveschneider wrote:

I think you are putting too much weight into college sports a lot of the country including the east coast is primarily interested in pro sports.

The south, the midwest and LA are college sports markets. If you like college sports then yes Michigan is going to be better for you than the east coast. Your real question should be what are the best college sports states.

This doesn't make much sense. I am holding college and pro equal, while your whole argument is predicated on MA having better pro sports. You refuse to account for college sports. So in reality, who is putting too much emphasis on what?

Blanch32 wrote:

Uhhh. We've lost to BC is the bowl game and once in bball. No idea what uofm has done

I agree. If she would have slaughtered the lambs when the man said boo, her son would still be governor of Tennessee.

Turtleneck wrote:

This doesn't make much sense. I am holding college and pro equal, while your whole argument is predicated on MA having better pro sports. You refuse to account for college sports. So in reality, who is putting too much emphasis on what?

I guess I don't even know what you are factoring in. I just think there's more Mass sports fans than all of the Michigan sports teams combined. Sorry college sports just doesn't have the same audience size as pro sports. Pro > college sports. There's probably more people watching New England Patriots games than Lions/MSU/UofM fans combined. There's definitely more Red Sox fans than Tigers fans. The NFL is a behemoth vs. College football, the audience is double the size. The Bruins are one of the original 8 and the Celtics are one of the biggest brands in the NBA.

Add in that all those teams are winning championships like crazy, if you live in that state you've had a great couple of decades. I'd do a back flip if the Tigers, Lions, Red Wings and Pistons could have the same type of run the Mass teams have had in the last 15 years.

Turtleneck wrote:

I agree. If she would have slaughtered the lambs when the man said boo, her son would still be governor of Tennessee.

Fuck that Lawrence Taylor lick up truck in the chocolate rain all day like turn turn turn

steveschneider wrote:

I guess I don't even know what you are factoring in. I just think there's more Mass sports fans than all of the Michigan sports teams combined. Sorry college sports just doesn't have the same audience size as pro sports. Pro > college sports. There's probably more people watching New England Patriots games than Lions/MSU/UofM fans combined. There's definitely more Red Sox fans than Tigers fans. The NFL is a behemoth vs. College football, the audience is double the size. The Bruins are one of the original 8 and the Celtics are one of the biggest brands in the NBA.

Add in that all those teams are winning championships like crazy, if you live in that state you've had a great couple of decades. I'd do a back flip if the Tigers, Lions, Red Wings and Pistons could have the same type of run the Mass teams have had in the last 15 years.

It's the Original Six, and last I checked the Red Wings are among that group as well.

In any event, your comment about pro being better than college is completely subjective and proves nothing. It's an opinion about how much people enjoy thing versus another. This is about an objective measure of the best sports state. It's not about who enjoys what as much as what is available to enjoy. Just because pro sports are more popular in certain markets does not mean we do not bring college sports into the analysis. It is about both. If you want to factor in only winning percentage of professional and college teams in a state (using the same standard as what is in the first post), MI beats MA.  If you measure by championships only, it is much closer. The numbers are in one of the above posts. Either way, you cannot that MA is any better than MI as a sports state. It does simply rest on what people watch and do not watch as much as it rests on what exists and does not exist. If this is only about pro sports, then you are right. If you make this about sports - both pro and college - it is much closer and Michigan probably has a slight lead.  Also, this is an interesting conversation given the eastward expansion of the Big Ten.

Blanch32 wrote:

Fuck that Lawrence Taylor lick up truck in the chocolate rain all day like turn turn turn

Tum Tum doesn't even eat cheese. What are you talking about?

Turtleneck wrote:New York is a terrible sports state if you prefer college over pros. CFB season sucks because all NY has to offer is Buffalo, Syracuse, and Army. No rivalry games and those three teams are all bad.

I never said we were a good state. Only good college program is Syracuse basketball (football was fun when Syracuse had McNabb). Pro sports, while we have a lot of teams, are terrible here, too. The Rangers are the only team based in NY that's won a championship in my lifetime, and that was 20 years ago.

SpartanHT wrote:

I never said we were a good state. Only good college program is Syracuse basketball (football was fun when Syracuse had McNabb). Pro sports, while we have a lot of teams, are terrible here, too. The Rangers are the only team based in NY that's won a championship in my lifetime, and that was 20 years ago.

I was talking about NY in general. It was not a response to you saying anything about NY one way or another. It's kind of disappointing. However, the east is different. Not many huge public schools. Lots of private schools and smaller publics. That kind of makes things a bit less exciting. Not sure I want my Saturday to be taken up watching Brockport. Although former MSU RB Scott Greene is the coach at UR. He is a Canandaigua native.

Turtleneck wrote:

I was talking about NY in general. It was not a response to you saying anything about NY one way or another. It's kind of disappointing. However, the east is different. Not many huge public schools. Lots of private schools and smaller publics. That kind of makes things a bit less exciting. Not sure I want my Saturday to be taken up watching Brockport. Although former MSU RB Scott Greene is the coach at UR. He is a Canandaigua native.

When I was a kid, Syracuse had Donovan McNabb and the Big East was considered a pretty legit football conference (not to mention they were the Orangemen, not the lame-ass Orange). There was a fair amount of college football interest back then, but like how it seems to be with most sports the Northeast, it was more of a bandwagon kind of thing.

I was pretty blown away at how loyal people were to their sports in Michigan, and how different the college setup was over there. The Midwest and Northeast are so, so different when it comes to sports and colleges.

I remember when Syracuse was much more competitive. That program fell off the cliff after Pasqualoni.

Turtleneck wrote:I remember when Syracuse was much more competitive. That program fell off the cliff after Pasqualoni.

There was some interest here back then, but not a lot. The Bills still were competitive and they rule the sports scene in this part of the state. I'd say CFB interest here kind of died with McNabb graduating.

Actually, have you gone to a Bills game? The tailgating scene is more like a college game. If you stay away from the trashy NFL fans that like to brawl in the upper deck, a game at the Ralph is a pretty good time.