That list is so stupid. Teams that can afford to charge high prices (i.e. they charge high prices but sell all of their tickets) get punished in the rankings but teams that have to charge low prices to get people in the door get rewarded? That seems backwards to me. Yea the cheaper tickets are "fan friendly" but the only reason the owners charge those prices is because they have to, not because they want to be friendly towards the fans. There should have been something tied to attendance. If you charge through the roof but average over 95% capacity, you should get rewarded because you're obviously doing something right or your franchise has a high enough value that people will pay those prices.
I think you are missing the point of what this survey is a measure of.
The eight major categories that make up the Ultimate Standings were created based on feedback from fans about what they want most from their favorite teams
In the detailed explanation of how the survey was done, it mentions, for example, that
fans rated Affordability about 50 percent more important than Ownership
I agree with this. Yes, in markets such as the NHL Toronto where demand exceeds supply, they will sell out almost no matter what they charge, but the survey wasn't limited to just the middle-class and above who can afford high-priced tickets. And the last-place Bang-For-Buck ranking of the Maple Leafs is appropriate given how well that team has performed in the last few years compared to how much revenue they are taking in.
If this survey was a measure of "the most successful" or "best-run" franchises, then certainly a lot of the rankings would be reversed, partly for the reasons you cited. But it isn't that. It is a
list of rankings that combines fan perspective with an objective measure of how well teams turn fan dollars into wins.
In that context, I find it to be quite interesting even though, of course, it is neither scientific nor beyond debate.