ESPN's "Ultimate Team Rankings"

ESPN recently debuted the latest version of its Ultimate Team Rankings. The goal of this "study" is, in ESPN's own words, "to measure how much MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL franchises give back to the fans in exchange for all the time, money and emotion the fans invest in them."

I put "study" in quotes because I feel that these rankings are a bunch of crap. It's a great concept -- if people love Power Rankings, they're going to love Franchise Rankings! -- but the criteria that go into these rankings are simply impossible to quantify. My opinion is that ESPN produces this garbage because it draws a lot of clicks and ad revenue. But that doesn't make the product legitimate or worth your time to read.

Anyway, ESPN uses 7 categories to measure a franchise's value, including bang for the buck, fan relations, ownership, affordability, stadium experience, players, coaching, and title track. For a more detailed discussion of these criteria, such as how they are defined and calculated, see here.

I have so many problems with this "study" that I'll just conclude right away that it's a joke and then offer just a few thoughts in support of that statement.

First, any Ultimate Team Rankings that puts the St. Louis Blues at #10 while placing the New York Rangers at #93 are flawed.

Second, ESPN polled 1,000 fans to determine what the categories should be. Based on those results, ESPN assigned a weight to each factor based on the amount of interest the fans had in that category. Somehow, "Title Track" wound up 1/2 as important as "Ownership" and 1/4 as important as "Fan Relations." Who are these fans? Why would anyone care 4 times as much about how fan-friendly your team is if the on-field product sucks? If no title is in sight, nobody should care about free parking, 2-for-1 hotdogs, and kids-run-the-bases promotions!!!

Third, the survey is too current. Meaning, teams that have enjoyed a recent resurgence on the field also enjoyed a resurgence in these rankings. Examples include the aforementioned Blues (#10), Washington Capitals (#6), Orlando Magic (#16), Chicago Blackhawks (#21), and the Arizona Cardinals (#33).

Meanwhile, teams with established fan bases and long histories of championships were shafted. Examples include the New York Yankees (#107), the Montreal Canadiens (#100), Dallas Cowboys (#76), and Detroit Pistons (#64).

Look, I know the Yankees (and other similarly-situated teams, like the Cowboys) are not very fan-friendly because their tickets, food, beverages, and the like are way overpriced, but what other complaints are there? Great ownership (loves to spend money on acquiring winning players). Definitely on the title track, perhaps even to a fault! Stadium experience these days is off the charts. Players and Girardi are popular, for the most part. Affordability and "bang for the buck" (whatever that is) is their real achilles heel, but is that a reason to drop them all the way to 107 out of 120?

I just don't buy this whole process. Take 2 groups of fans: those who root for the #107 Yankees and those who root for #16 Tampa Bay Rays. I can't believe that Rays fans have a better fan experience than Yankees fans. Horrible stadium, horrible ownership, and no guarantee of future on-field performance corresponding to last year's Cinderella run. Fan-friendly manager and cheap tickets seem to be the big advantage there. But any team whose stadium is mostly filled with fans of the other team cannot possibly be so amazing as to merit a top-20 ranking, while the Yankees are stuck with #107. This....is just crap.