Home | Introduction | Data sources
|
Methodology
|
Cartographic Model | Conclusion |
The single best location for
the NFL to expand from 31 to 32 teams would be another team near LA based
on the factors provided. Based on the financial report of the NFL they could
either expand or relocate the poorest performing team from New Orleans. This
is dependent on how accurate the NFL reported its financial records. As stated
the financial books can be cooked in other sports so why not football.
Either way there is a market that is unexploited as of 2001 for a football team in the LA area. |
The relative suitability of the
entire US is shown with results that relatively fit the current layout of
teams. The benefit of moving for various tax reasons and state perks can
not be included but the current layout of teams focusing in the East and
West coast does seem to take advantage of the population. This map does
show that California is still not exploited as fully as it could be. With
potential room for another team in and around the Eastern Great Lakes.
|
This further expansion is
also hinging on the talent pool not being stretched too thin. To dilute
the market too much would kill the finical benefits of holding a cartel
of NFL franchises discussed at
Dollars and Sense
. The top down design allowed me to accurately create factors and weights for NFL frachises. The map of the US can be seen to show regions that are as of yet unexploited. The factor analysis allows a narrowing of locations of NFL teams to sectors of the country but does not give me the intended result of a ranked list of city locations. For that a subtractive process of suitability as each team was added to the list would be needed. This can not be done without N*31 steps of subtraction after creating an MCE layer. |
Problems not foreseenThis analysis doesn't take into account that a teams win loss ratio will greatly affect it's fan base. If a team does not win only the die hard fan is going to attend. The longer a team is in an area the more loyalty they will show a team.The city data was very informative and useful for many aspects of the project. Unfortunately the city data is stored in point. This does not translate well into raster format which relies on continuous data for effective analysis. Above and beyond that reassociating the data with a cities id value once it is lost is difficult. So in other words I forgot one of the cardinal rules of GIS that the type of analysis is suitable to the software being used. Using cities as my base unit for the project the scale becomes very difficult to measure across the entire US. The relative size of a city does not show up on a map of the US unless zoomed in. |
Intended but unaccomplished Analysis
|