The Mag's Ultimate Standings 2013

SINCE LAUNCHING the Ultimate Standings 10 years ago, we've stuck to our tried-and-true four-step approach to ranking every MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL team. First, with the help of Chicago consulting firm Maddock Douglas, we surveyed 1,011 sports fans across North America in the spring to determine what they want most in return for the emotion, money and time they invest in their favorite clubs. Our poll covered 25 topics, from "has likable players" to "provides an avenue for fans to give feedback to the franchise."

Next, through and NetReflector, a Seattle opinion research company, we asked fans to rate their favorite teams online in each category. (Thanks to the 59,298 of you who responded!) We grouped the grades into seven of the eight subjects you see at right.

For the remaining category, bang for the buck, we relied on calculations we've developed with researchers at the University of Oregon's Warsaw Sports Marketing Center to figure out how efficiently teams convert revenues from fans into performance on the field (including postseason victories).

Finally, we combined each team's score across all eight categories into a weighted average, based on the results of our national poll. Since fans said affordability was about 40 percent more important than stadium experience, for example, our formula reflects that.

The result: the 2013 Ultimate Standings, the only rankings that combine fan perspectives with an objective measure of how well teams turn dollars into wins. Ultimately, it all counts.

Title track: 3.6 percent
Championships won or expected within the lifetime of current fans.
1. Baltimore Ravens
122. Milwaukee Bucks

Ownership: 10.2 percent
Honesty and loyalty to core players and to the community.
1. San Antonio Spurs
122. Miami Marlins

Coaching: 3.1 percent
Strength of on-field leadership.
1. San Antonio Spurs
122. Charlotte Bobcats

Players: 11.3 percent
Effort on the field, likability off it.
1. San Antonio Spurs
122. Sacramento Kings

Fan relations: 25.2 percent
Courtesy of players, coaches and front offices toward fans and how well a team uses technology to reach them.
1. San Antonio Spurs
122. Sacramento Kings

Affordability: 17.4 percent
Price of tickets, parking and concessions.
1.Indiana Pacers
122. Toronto Maple Leafs

Stadium experience: 12.4 percent
Quality of venue, fan-friendliness of environment, frequency of game-day promotions.
1. San Francisco Giants
122. Sacramento Kings

Bang for the buck: 16.8 percent
1. Indiana Pacers
122. Toronto Maple Leafs

Click on table headings to sort by category.

1.Philadelphia Eagles721710441116442
2.Tampa Bay Buccaneers2049232322129535
3.Green Bay Packers11032141096
4.New England Patriots1640131252241666
5.Oakland Raiders332437704895185125
6.Houston TexansN/AN/A57215213149
7.Miami Dolphins6518161540224641
8.Tennessee Titans256012351817231031
9.San Francisco 49ers313150384787296713
10.Baltimore Ravens1932261953163088
11.Kansas City Chiefs288125142315351148
12.Atlanta Falcons23481620349366538
13.Indianapolis Colts5036598430103372256
14.New York Jets5247493197113422561
15.San Diego Chargers8097698978108461562
16.Buffalo Bills4770354114704810351
17.Pittsburgh Steelers151727152438522933
18.New Orleans Saints482668825978591769
19.Cleveland Browns649162296462622066
20.Jacksonville Jaguars709942513756648362
21.St. Louis Rams413945586067669814
22.Denver Broncos324158256846674915
23.Dallas Cowboys94106887466867211819
24.New York Giants4319823710498777723
25.Chicago Bears9588928890918210953
26.Washington Redskins87104768011158858626
27.Seattle Seahawks7877857299559885100
28.Carolina Panthers991151125462681015468
29.Arizona Cardinals1127811711910012110341118
30.Minnesota Vikings10280108100951141057381
31.Detroit Lions11510011310111079113121119
32.Cincinnati Bengals118116120120116116119119121


Use a Facebook account to add a comment, subject to Facebook's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your Facebook name, photo & other personal information you make public on Facebook will appear with your comment, and may be used on ESPN's media platforms. Learn more.