Colin Cowherd today listed his top 10 America's Teams:
1. Dallas Cowboys
2. LA Lakers
3. NY Yankees
4. Green Bay Packers
5. Pittsburgh Steelers
6. Notre Dame football
7. Chicago Cubs
8. Golden State Warriors
9. Duke basketball
10. NE Patriots
I would not put the Cubs, Warriors or Patriots on there. For a list like this, I would put teams that are legendary over the long haul. The St Louis Cardinals and Boston Celtics have to be on there. I would also put either UNC basketball or an NHL team (can't decided which I would put).
I assume this generally means teams that have large national fan bases. If so, I think 1, 3, 4 and 5 belong on the list. I can't really speak to the Lakers since I live in Socal, so I don't have any sort of national perspective.
ND football used to belong, but I think they've been eclipsed over the last 20+ years (by Alabama and maybe USC (again with not having a national perspective there)).
The Cubs have always had a strong national fanbase -- even before they got good in the last 5 years. However, I think that's too much of a recent thing, and if they don't stay strong over the long haul, it will diminish back to "lovable loser" status. The Red Sox belong on this list over the Cubs.
The Warriors are WAY too recent to be on the list. Once the current spike is over, no one will care about them. Celtics should be on the list.
Duke basketball is fine.
Patriots should be much higher on the list (and the Cowboys should be lower, but still belong).
The Penguins or Blackhawks are as close as the NHL comes to this list, but the reality is that no NHL team belongs on this list (the Hawks, also an O6 franchise, have a much stronger national appeal than the Rangers).
Even if that is all true, the Cardinals are still the more iconic franchise.
Just look at legends for both teams.
The Cardinals have Stan Musial, Ozzie Smith, Roger Hornsby, Albert Pujols, Bob Gibson, Lou Brock, Enos Slaughter, Red Schoendienst, Dizzy Dean, etc. The list goes on and on.
The Cubs have Ernie Banks and....who else?
It's hard to have legends when you are known for being losers for a solid century.
I disagree that the Cardinals are a more iconic franchise. In terms of baseball, they're on the same level.
Cubs legends? For starters, and since you mentioned them, how about Rogers Hornsby and Dizzy Dean? While both played longer and were better with the Cards, each was a Cub for four seasons, and Hornsby won an MVP with the Cubs. On a more serious note: Andre Dawson, Billy Williams, Grover Cleveland Alexander (also a Cardinal for a few seasons at the end of his career), Ryne Sandberg, Fergie Jenkins, Ron Santo, Hack Wilson, Bruce Sutter, Sammy Sosa, Lee Smith, 3-Finger Brown, Rick Sutcliffe, Cap Anson (they weren't the Cubs yet, but still), Joe Tinker/Johnny Evers/Frank Chance, and Billy Herman. All of those guys are (or, in the case of Smith and Sosa, should be in) in the Hall of Fame and, with the possible exception of Billy Herman, all are well known to baseball fans (at least to the extent that Enos Slaughter and Red Schoendienst are). And I haven't even mentioned active players like Jake Arrieta, Jon Lester, Kris Bryant and Anthony Rizzo. Other than Albert Pujols and Yadier Molina, I can't think of a single current or recent Cardinal on the same level.
Moreover, the Cubs are FAR more of a national team, whereas the Cards are more of a regional team. When the Cubs play at Dodger Stadium, Cubs fans are there in droves, and that has been the case since long before the recent resurgence. Not so much with Cards fans.