Which city has the most pathetic sports teams?

[wabio]

I know my city is up for contention. First, we only have two sports teams. Second, they both suck! Neither of them have ever won the big game. Who gets your vote?

[DarkElf]

Last year, I would have agreed with you on San Diego, but not this year. The Padres look so much better for 2004, and I'm actually pretty excited. But the Chargers are a miserable organization (and they are demanding a new stadium??? STFU!)

Oh wait, you're a Yankee fan, so of course you won't give us our props! :p

I've been a NY sports fan all my life (born/raised in SoConn ;) ), and it's not so good these days for my NY teams (Mets, Giants, Knicks, Rangers).

[Lateralus]

Pittsburgh! Steelers, Pens, Pirates will all have losing records this year; and the Panthers college football team just lost two high recruits.

If it was not for the #4 ranked Pitt Panthers in Men’s Basketball the city would really be the armpit of athletics.

[Red Dog]

I'll put D.C. up against any city (for pro sports) - at least if we are talking the last decade or so.

[mgbfan]

Philly and Detroit have been pretty harsh on their fans.

[Red Dog]

If talking about the last decade, Philly and Detroit are way ahead of DC. At least the Eagles are perennial contenders. Plus the 76ers made the finals recently, didn't they? As for Detroit, while the Tigers and Lions suck, they have the Red Wings who have been the best NHL franchise in the last decade.

[brizz]

and the Pistons are no slouches the last couple of years either....so we're kinda 50/50 here....one great one, one really good one, and two bad ones. And even with the Pistons slumping in the 90s, they did win two championships in 88-89 - not THAT long ago....

[Pharoh]

Originally posted by Red Dog
I'll put D.C. up against any city (for pro sports) - at least if we are talking the last decade or so.


Sorry, but D.C. is not even in the same universe as Cleveland. I don't even think this is a question.

[Red Dog]

Originally posted by Pharoh
Sorry, but D.C. is not even in the same universe as Cleveland. I don't even think this is a question.


Over the history of pro sports, I would agree. Over the last 10 years, I disagree. How many times did the Indians make the playoffs. How many times did they play for a world title.

[Red Dog]

Also compare the Skins and Browns in the last decade. The Browns have 1 more playoff appearance which says a lot considering the Browns were not in the league for 3 of the last 10 years.

[Pharoh]

Originally posted by Red Dog
Over the history of pro sports, I would agree. Over the last 10 years, I disagree. How many times did the Indians make the playoffs. How many times did they play for a world title.


Perhaps I am giving extra weight, more than I should, to the absence of the Browns. Still, I would rather have had a team that was bad during those years than no team at all. And I factor in the heartbreak factor as well. I do though see your point. Sucks for both.

[Tsar Chasm]

Portland, OR.

We couldn't even buy a baseball team with a brand new stadium.

[El Scorcho]

Another vote for Portland. :)

Fluckin hippies here hate baseball.

[whotony]

why the last decade?
the thread starter wabio didnt say last decade.

i vote for philly and cleveland.

philly hasnt won squat in 21 years, anyleague.

and what about cleveland.
it's too bad the braves had to get thier only title during the last 15 years, and it happened to be against the indians.

[Canadian Bacon]

Tuscalusa,(?sp) AL and Durham,NC ;)

as for Pro cities, San Diego, Detroit (of late) Washington DC (of late) and I agree with Pittsburgh

[Red Dog]

Originally posted by whotony
why the last decade?
the thread starter wabio didnt say last decade.
.


Because it was easier for me to go 10 years back than back throughout history. :p For those saying Cleveland, keep in mind that the Browns were a powerhouse in the 50s, winning multiple championships.

If you go back throughout history, I guess Atlanta would be the worst. No titles for the Falcons, Hawks and whatever their hockey team is named (and rarely did any of these teams come close to one). Only 1 title for the Braves and up until the 90s, the Braves were a lousy franchise.

So Atlanta gets my vote for worst franchises overall over time and most apethetic fans overall (although I can see why). :D

[POWERBOMB]

Buffalo?

[Jericho]

Right now Washington sucks balls. The Wizards/Bullets have made the playoffs once in what 15 years and are fighting for the worst record in the league.

The Capitals used to be good, although never great, and are now fighting for the worst record in the league

And the Skins haven't done well in a while and finished with the 5th worst record in the league.

Throw in the Orioles and you have all four sports with awful, awful teams in the last year (and often many years beyond)

[wabio]

Originally posted by DarkElf
Last year, I would have agreed with you on San Diego, but not this year. The Padres look so much better for 2004, and I'm actually pretty excited. But the Chargers are a miserable organization (and they are demanding a new stadium??? STFU!)

Oh wait, you're a Yankee fan, so of course you won't give us our props! :p

I've been a NY sports fan all my life (born/raised in SoConn ;) ), and it's not so good these days for my NY teams (Mets, Giants, Knicks, Rangers).

I guess if you're comparing losing percentage to amount of money spent, NY is a good pick. Granted San Diego sucks, but they spend nothing. With the exception of the Yanks, NY makes you wonder:

Jets
Giants
Knicks
Ranger
Mets
Islanders

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ doesn't automatically= wins :hscratch:

[Jericho]

Originally posted by wabio
I guess if you're comparing losing percentage to amount of money spent, NY is a good pick. Granted San Diego sucks, but they spend nothing. With the exception of the Yanks, NY makes you wonder:

Jets
Giants
Knicks
Ranger
Mets
Islanders

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ doesn't automatically= wins :hscratch:

Well with the salary caps in basketball and football, money is basically irrelevant as any team has equal shot at players. Baseball and Hockey are where money can actually get you (or cost you) good players. The Rangers failures are pretty bad, but the Yankees win and the Islanders have been a playoff team for a few years.

Besides, you can't leave out the Devils and Nets, who play a stone's throw away from the Giants and Jets. Between the Devils, Yankees, and Nets that's a lot of success

[NCMojo]

Until this year, the Queen City of Charlotte did not have much success. The Hornets never went anywhere, and the Panthers were dreadful for much of their existence. If you count the entire state of North Carolina, the ABA Carolina Cougars only had two winning seasons, the Carolina Hurricanes have never won their division (although they did make the Stanley Cup finals), and we have had mediocre support for professional baseball.

[rabbit77]

I've thought about this before and came up with this not too long ago. If we're looking at all time, and since not every city has the same number of major professional teams, I think one way to do this is to take the total number of seasons a city has had a franchise for the big 4 sports and divide that by total championships. Chicago for example:

Blackhawks (Since 1926): 3 Stanley cups in 76 seasons
Bulls (Since 1966): 6 championships in 36 seasons
Bears (Since 1922): 8 championships in 81 seasons
White Sox (since 1903): 2 world series in 100 seasons
Cubs (since 1903): 2 world series in 100 seasons

So Chicago wins a championship once every 18.7 years. Which is pretty pathetic.

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by mgbfan
Detroit have been pretty harsh on their fans. Hello? Red Wings?

[Red Dog]

Originally posted by rabbit77
I've thought about this before and came up with this not too long ago. If we're looking at all time, and since not every city has the same number of major professional teams, I think one way to do this is to take the total number of seasons a city has had a franchise for the big 4 sports and divide that by total championships. Chicago for example:

Blackhawks (Since 1926): 3 Stanley cups in 76 seasons
Bulls (Since 1966): 6 championships in 36 seasons
Bears (Since 1922): 8 championships in 81 seasons
White Sox (since 1903): 2 world series in 100 seasons
Cubs (since 1903): 2 world series in 100 seasons

So Chicago wins a championship once every 18.7 years. Which is pretty pathetic.


Again, I offer Washington (I may be off a year or 2 on the total number for each):

Senators: 1 title in 73 seasons
Redskins: 5 titles in 68 seasons
Caps: 0 titles in 30 seasons
Bullets/Wiz: 1 title in 30 seasons

1 title every 29 years.

[Pharoh]

Originally posted by Red Dog
Again, I offer Washington (I may be off a year or 2 on the total number for each):

Senators: 1 title in 73 seasons
Redskins: 5 titles in 68 seasons
Caps: 0 titles in 30 seasons
Bullets/Wiz: 1 title in 30 seasons

1 title every 29 years.



And again I offer Cleveland. They have averaged 1 Championship every 19.1 years, mainly due to the old Browns winning 8 of them, 4 of which were pre NFL. However, these type of totals are going to be skewed by cities that have had more franchises for longer periods of time. To me a more realistic assessment is the following. Taking into account the three main American sports, (no NHL here, sorry puck fans), it has been 110 combined professional seasons since a Cleveland team has won a championship. I really would like to a higher level of suckitude than that. I don't think it exists.

[VinVega]

People people PEOPLE! 2 words...New Orleans!

Can you think of anything suckier?

[cold gin]

I would hate to be a Texas Ranger fan. They suck but are hand tied with one of the highest payrolls in baseball.

Someone about talked about Pittsburgh. I think the Steelers will OK next year. Overall though, the city has had quite a bit of success so I don't think you can say Pittsburgh is a bad sports town in general.

[Da Thrilla]

Right now...Detroit.