re: What is the least interesting city for a NFL franchise?

quote:

---

Kansas City

---

Tyga, I agree with you more than not, but no chance. KC isn't even in the top 7 or 8 of this list - it certainly lives up to its reputation as one of America's more underrated tourist destinations.

Charlotte, as mentioned. The Jacksonville area has some cool things going on but way too spread out and not really accessible. Arizona Cardinals outside of a few times a year (which aren't football season) - PHX / Scottsdale is rather bland after a few days. Tampa. Cincinnati. Detroit. Cleveland. Indianapolis.

Minneapolis really ain't that great in my opinion, and frankly I hate Vegas outside of 48 hour stints. I've never been to Green Bay proper but I have been to northern Wisconsin a decent bit, and there is no chance it is more interesting than KC.

As far as interesting cities go, Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, DC, New York, New Orleans, Chicago, Miami, San Francisco, and LA are clearly in a tier or five above KC.

Denver, Seattle, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta are almost also certainly more interesting but all those places have a certain blandness that's masked by hyper-charged recent growth.

Green Bay is kind of its own beast as it's much, much smaller than all other NFL markets, but it pulls all of Wisconsin as a direct market and a good chunk of the rest of the Upper Midwest, so not really comparable. Buffalo is kind of similar as well + Buffalo direct market pulls in a decent chunk of Great Lakes Canada.