I think that is the better measure; I believe it's the one the NFL uses because Buffalo used to always bitch the Rochester/Gennesse Valley area shouldn't count against them. Or for them. Whichever's correct.
Holden's comment about the size of the media market leads me to this comment. Of the 12 teams in the playoffs this year, all but New Orleans (54) are ranked in the top 50 TV markets. The only other "smaller market" teams are KC (31), San Diego (27), Indianapolis (25), and Baltimore (24). The other 7 are all ranked in the top 15. To be specific the rankings are: 1. New York (Jets and Giants) 3. Chicago 4. Philadelphia 6. Dallas/Fort Worth 7. Boston & New Hampshire (Patriots) 14. Seattle Of the lower ranked TV market teams, Baltimore will probably draw viewers from the Washington, DC, market; San Diego from the Los Angeles market; and New Orleans from the various markets along the Gulf Coast, deep South, and Houston. This raises the question in my mind about the influence of media market size on a team's on-the-field success. The salary cap and the draft are supposed to be the great leveling influences, and would seem to eliminate market size (and thus, financial health) as a factor in a team's talent level. The evidence above tends to say otherwise.
The salary cap and the draft are supposed to be the great leveling influences, and would seem to eliminate market size (and thus, financial health) as a factor in a team's talent level. Salary cap, to some extent. Draft, probably not. Unless there's some sort of guarantee the players taken by teams are absolutely going to produce, it ends up setting teams further back. A few years back when the Buffalo Bills had one of the top picks and used it on offensive lineman Mike Williams; that single move has set the team back a long, long way.
Draft, probably not. Dyams, the intent of the draft is obvious, but I agree that its implementation by some teams has been much better than by others. This is not due to the way that the draft is designed, but rather due to the ineptitude of some teams. My premise is that money available in the larger markets is a factor in the quality of a team. One way in which this may be manifested is in the quality of a team's scouting staff.
Dyams, the intent of the draft is obvious, but I agree that its implementation by some teams has been much better than by others. This is not due to the way that the draft is designed, but rather due to the ineptitude of some teams. My premise is that money available in the larger markets is a factor in the quality of a team. One way in which this may be manifested is in the quality of a team's scouting staff. I gotta agree with Howard. By your logic dyams, you could also say that the salary cap is not an equalizer because some teams sign players to bad contracts that decrease cap flexibility and cripple the team for years to come. The draft and the salary cap are both equalizers that level the playing field, but some teams use them or operate under them poorly and handicap themselves in the process.
