No surprise. Also both burst and validates the East Coast Bias bubble.

Burst because teams that are good, with likable or remarkable star players, a buzz, or a controversy, can get a lot of attention on this coast.

Validates because some teams have par for the course, or sub-par, offseasons, chances at contention, storylines, etc., but by sheer volume of fanship and entrenched media popularity, remain popular in the media.  

The Giants surprised me by being so high, they don't seem to be getting a lot of attention this summer.  But the story notes it's mostly by being the top online team mention.  

The Jets really surprised me by being so low.  Enough to suspect strong selection bias.  Nielsen ratings are still the standard for hundred billion dollar advertising platform TV, as well as no shrimp radio, and still gather their results of consumer consumption by randomly direct mailing people to agree to "diary" what they watch/listen to and mail it back, for what was recently $2 a day (in cash, mailed with the diary; I recently received one).  It's profound selection bias in 2010.  Now here they've found a way to measure specific mentions on the internet, so, hey, progress!  But the Hard Knocks Jets?  Revis holdout?  The trades?  The buzz?  The coach?  Tony Dungy?  Brady hates them?  New York?  Etc. etc. etc.?  The preseason darlings and iffy but reasonable AFC Super Bowl favorites the Jets are 18th on a list where 13th rates exactly half of 1st?  Suspicious, to put it mildly.

But I can see teams that get attention because of compelling stories, high profile figures, with realistic chances at playoff contention, and then teams that get attention because they are popular, and will be popular.  Some East Coast teams will remain popular.  And some West Coast teams can get attention when they have compelling stories, high profile figures or realistic chances at playoff contention.

Seattle is none of the above, and there's no reason to complain about it from my point of view.