Four candidate markets, scored on a single model. Where ETS should plant next.
ETS is considering new 2027 markets where it does not yet operate. The question is not 'are these good towns' — it's 'which one earns the first lease, and what has to be true before signing it.'
Bel Air is the cleanest go. The two PA-and-WA strong markets are real but each carries one specific risk that a cheap Meta test resolves before any lease is signed. Cranberry is the most desirable town and the hardest entry — D1 is already there, on ETS's exact athlete.
Segments show the five pillars in fixed order — Youth Demand · Affluence · Competitive Openness · White-Space Fit · Operational Viability — each filled 0–5.
Every pillar, every market, on the same 0–5 scale. The weighted total is the Market-Fit Score.
| Pillar | Bel AirMD · 88/100 | HersheyPA · 82/100 | Tri-Cities, WAWA · 80/100 | NW PittsburghPA · 68/100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Youth Demand Base25% weight | 4/5 | 3/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| Affluence & Willingness-to-Pay20% weight | 5/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 | 5/5 |
| Competitive Openness25% weight | 4/5 | 5/5 | 3/5 | 1/5 |
| ETS White-Space Fit20% weight | 5/5 | 5/5 | 4/5 | 3/5 |
| Operational Viability10% weight | 4/5 | 3/5 | 4/5 | 3/5 |
| Market-Fit Score | 88 Strong | 82 Watch | 80 Watch | 68 Watch |
Every market started as an instinct. We checked each one against census data, competitor sites, and review platforms — confirming some, correcting others.
Not "go everywhere." A staged plan that risks the least capital on the surest market first, and gates the rest on a cheap demand test.
Across all four markets, one lane is uncontested everywhere: nobody — not D1, not Parisi, not the strong locals — leads with objective athlete data, a true middle-school focus, and a development-over-exposure culture at the same time. That is ETS's entry wedge in every market. Where ETS loses is on being first (Cranberry) or on catchment depth (Hershey), never on differentiation.
In every market the recommended entry offer is identical: a free VALD force-plate athlete evaluation. It is the one thing no local competitor can match, it is the natural lead for the data-driven story, and it doubles as the demand test — cost-per-booked-evaluation is the single number that greenlights or kills a lease.
This analysis is a snapshot taken by hand. The same engine — competitor moves, market shifts, demographic change — can run continuously as a LEVR intelligence loop, so the day a D1 breaks ground in Bel Air or a Parisi closes in Tri-Cities, ETS knows that week, not next planning cycle.
Four markets can't be compared on gut feel and a glance at a map. We scored each on five weighted pillars — the same model, the same sources, the same anchors — so the numbers are directly comparable. Each pillar is scored 0–5; the weighted total is the Market-Fit Score (0–100).
Size of the addressable youth-athlete market: catchment population, 5-year growth, share and count under 18, schools, and the depth of the local travel/club sports culture.
Can families afford recurring paid training, and do they already value it? Median household income vs. ETS's ~$75–90k benchmark, households with children, home values.
How crowded is the youth-performance space — scored inverse, so wide-open scores high. D1 Training, Parisi, Athletic Republic and strong locals all count against. D1 presence is a heavy flag.
Does ETS's specific differentiation land here? Data/VALD, middle-school focus, character/faith, female-athlete/ACL, small-group — and whether any competitor already owns those lanes.
Can a physical box actually work: catchment density inside a 15–20 minute drive, geography, real-estate availability and rent, and distance to existing ETS support.
Each market was researched independently against the same five-pillar model by a dedicated analyst, using U.S. Census / city-data demographics, competitor websites, Google/Yelp review pages, franchise disclosure filings, and commercial real-estate listings. Every demographic figure and competitor fact traces to a cited URL; unverifiable figures are marked as estimates. Scores apply a fixed 0–5 anchor set so the four markets are directly comparable. This is desk research — it is designed to be confirmed by an on-the-ground walk-through and a live Meta demand test before any capital is committed.