Wrong.
The Green Bay Packers are an extremely small market team. They're exciting as hell when they're good. This isn't about small vs. large markets. This is about two irrelevant footnotes in the history of the sport. Meh.
The Packers may be playing in a uniquely small market, but they are still one of the biggest fan bases in the NFL, which, as always, play by different rules than everyone else when it comes to marketing and appeal. The Packers themselves are an outlier to everything.
Dallas, in the NFL, is perhaps the biggest market because the Cowboys are who they are. Dallas, in MLB, are not. It you’re a big market in one, you should be in the other.
Baseball is not a national appeal sport the way it used to. It just isn’t. People talking about big vs. small markets, it is demonstrably better for baseball that big markets going far and into the World Series is better for them and networks. There’s nothing wrong from a competitive standpoint that more parity exists, but for stuff like this to matter, you have to have marketable stars created, and while it’s been better recently, they don’t really do that.
The NBA and NFL can pretty much guarantee that the best players in the league are there at the end, that’s why they can get so hot regardless of who is there, while MLB and the NHL can’t. MLB can’t even get their best player into the expanded playoffs. Not saying it’s all the same, but you can be Sacramento or Memphis or San Antonio in the NBA and be an attraction if you’re good just as when the Knicks or Lakers are bad, be meaningless as well.