PDA

View Full Version : Vote: Worst Franchise in sports poll



Greenlawler
11-19-2009, 03:02 PM
read an article in the Wahington Post that spurred this on.

Okay so who is the worst?

Based on fuetility, poor choices, fan support.

So here are my nominees:
Cleveland Browns: Clearly one of the perinial doormats of the NFL since their re-entry. Great hard luck fans who deserve much better. A regular coaching carousel. It truly sums up the fate of the franchise when you realize that the original Browns, once they moved to Baltimore won a Super Bowl quickly there after.
Los Angeles Clippers: Do I even have to explain this one? The odds on favorite to win this poll. In the history of the franchise they have never been legitimate contenders. How many years in a row did the Clippers miss on first round draft picks?
Detroit Lions: You would have to go back to the 60's to find a championship calibur Lions sqaud. In fact they perhaps only the Lions could feature the greatest running back in history during the 90's, and not win with him. Need we even mention last year? The first 0-16 team in history. Yet next week fans will watch them on Thanksgiving again, highlighting just how bad they are.
Milwaukee Brewers: While just about every other team in baseball has had at least some level of triumph, fans in Milwaukee have suffered through an awful dry spell. As a fan of this team myself it is painful to even type this. Only one AL championship in 1982 and only one playoff run since.
Arizona Cardinals: Okay I know they made the Super Bowl last year. But until proven otherwise...one hit wonder. Four, I repeat four playoff runs in the history of the team. If it had not been for last year, I think they would have been the favorite.
Atlanta Hawks: How is this team still there? Not since the days Dominique Williams and Spud Webb has this team been at all relavent. Their fans are easily among the worst fan bases in sports.
Golden State Warriors: How many casual sports fans even know this team exsists? If they do it is probably becuase they have heard of Chris Mullins, or knew that Chris Weber was traded from there. Forget about the old days of Rick Berry, This team traded away Robert Parrish! It has been more than 30 years since the Warriors flashed a ring.
Memphis Grizzlies: Basketball in Memphis? It should have been a marriage made in heaven. However the strong ties to the University of Memphis and the high ticket prices have led to an abundance of empty seats. The only thing that perhaps keeps the franchise in Memphis is the young talent, promising a bright future and the deep pockets of Fed Ex.
Chicago Blackhawks: While Bruins fans can sypathize with the Hawks plight, at least the Bruins played to somewhat full houses. The coutries third largest city, an original team, playing to an empty building for years. Last stanley Cup? 1961.
Kansas City Royals: Great fans, George Brett, Brett Saberhagen, good times. Then it began, the billion dollar baseball era of the have's and the have not's. The Royals have become the poster children for the have not's. Since 1995 there has been no team as dismal as the Royals even loosing more 100 games in three straight seasons.

Scar
11-19-2009, 03:15 PM
My choices aren't listed. Pittsbugh Pirates in the NL (I only follow NL) and Oakland Raiders in the NFL, only because of Davis. Don't follow Hockey or Basketball.

gueli
11-19-2009, 03:23 PM
Again too many choices not listed- but I voted for detroit lions anyway.:D

Hockey- NY Islanders
I wouldn't call the raiders the worst- they have had a tough few decades. Now this year...
dont the cubs count- yeah they win sometimes, but aren't they like the jets- in the offseason, they are going to take it this year...
and if you call the clevland browns- do you mean the old browns (now baltimore ravens) or the new browns- the expansion team ? didn't their few years without a team kind of restart the franchise ?
also- not that I know all the history- but didn't the browns win the old championship before the AFL & NFL merger ?
here's to the fans of any team that has taken it on the chin for at least 10 years...:beer:

Ms. Mode
11-19-2009, 03:33 PM
It's the Browns for me. Living in WV we are forced to watch their games every Sunday :ack:
Can't remember a season they won since....maybe the 80s

sportsguy2315
11-19-2009, 03:50 PM
Hockey- NY Islanders


I'll agree with you there to a point, anyone crazy enough to hire Mike Milbury as a GM is an automatic qualifier. However, at least you guys aren't bankrupt like Phoenix and y'all are off to a decent start.
My choices BTW (By league):
MLB: Pittsburgh Pirates
NBA: Memphis Grizzlies
NFL: Oakland Raiders/Cleveland Browns
NHL: Phoenix Coyotes

Greenlawler
11-19-2009, 03:50 PM
Again too many choices not listed- but I voted for detroit lions anyway.:D

Hockey- NY Islanders
I wouldn't call the raiders the worst- they have had a tough few decades. Now this year...
dont the cubs count- yeah they win sometimes, but aren't they like the jets- in the offseason, they are going to take it this year...
and if you call the clevland browns- do you mean the old browns (now baltimore ravens) or the new browns- the expansion team ? didn't their few years without a team kind of restart the franchise ?
also- not that I know all the history- but didn't the browns win the old championship before the AFL & NFL merger ?
here's to the fans of any team that has taken it on the chin for at least 10 years...:beer:

I considered the new Browns not the old. I just could not rank the Islanders above some of these. How quickly do we forget the good times. At least the Isles had some.

Greenlawler
11-19-2009, 03:53 PM
[QUOTE=sportsguy2315;1986441]I'll agree with you there to a point, anyone crazy enough to hire Mike Milbury as a GM is an automatic qualifier. However, at least you guys aren't bankrupt like Phoenix and y'all are off to a decent start.
My choices BTW (By league):
MLB: Pittsburgh Pirates
NBA: Memphis Grizzlies
NFL: Oakland Raiders/Cleveland Browns
NHL: Phoenix Coyotes

The Pirates were my last cut. The Raiders have been relavent, this decade. I did not count the Blue Jackets or Coyotes because I think they are done.

sportsguy2315
11-19-2009, 04:05 PM
The Raiders have been relavent, this decade.

If that's your logic for this list, the Blackhawks have been relevant this decade, not only on the ice with their run to the Western Conference Finals last season but off the ice as well by finally spending the money they always had but Bill Wirtz would never touch to get such players as Marian Hossa and John Madden. Playing to "an empty building for years"? Again, not true my friend. While it is true that the Blackhawks were towards the bottom of the attendance for most of the decade, they led the NHL in both home and overall attendance last season while they lead in total home attendance again this season. If this list was put out circa 2006-07 I'd agree with you, but the Blackhawks are back.

CanadianWDWFan
11-19-2009, 04:54 PM
The Toronto Maple Leafs aren't listed. :confused:

They are consistently absent from post season play. But yet the arena is always filled to capacity. They are the most expensive team to go and see play in the NHL but the worst performers.

Missy_Mouses_Dad
11-19-2009, 04:56 PM
I had to vote for the Lions. Right now, I don't think they could fill a high school stadium. The Brewers are very frustrating, but the new management regime has been making good moves outside of pitching. They seem to err on the side of caution since the Suppan deal as far as pitching is concerned.

alphamommy
11-19-2009, 05:01 PM
I guess I'm partial, but I had to vote for the Detroit Lions.

Their last championship was in 1957. Since then, they've won one playoff game. Aside from Barry Sanders, the two best players they've had in my lifetime (46 years) have both been kickers (Eddie Murray and Jason Hanson). The Matt Millen fiasco was a disaster, and they haven't been able to lure a reputable head coach to Detroit in decades.

Unfortunately, enough fans still show up for their games and buy their merchandise that the ownership (William Clay Ford) doesn't seem to think he needs to make any major changes.

Scar
11-19-2009, 05:23 PM
The Raiders have been relavent, this decade.Well, yea, they did lose a Super Bowl this decade, badly. But I mean come on, just for Al Davis alone they need to considered.

Greenlawler
11-19-2009, 06:03 PM
If that's your logic for this list, the Blackhawks have been relevant this decade, not only on the ice with their run to the Western Conference Finals last season but off the ice as well by finally spending the money they always had but Bill Wirtz would never touch to get such players as Marian Hossa and John Madden. Playing to "an empty building for years"? Again, not true my friend. While it is true that the Blackhawks were towards the bottom of the attendance for most of the decade, they led the NHL in both home and overall attendance last season while they lead in total home attendance again this season. If this list was put out circa 2006-07 I'd agree with you, but the Blackhawks are back.

True the Hawks are on the upswing but am I sensing a little "homeridus" :secret: they have been back for maybe two or three years, and they have not won a championship. . Rare is the list of this sort without the Blackhawks my friend. You tell me that I am wrong about empty buildings and yet the next sentence you confirm my point. So what the last two years have been good, but 40 years of fuetility cannot be erased in two seasons.
The Raiders, I cannot stand them either. Should probably have been in the next ten, but the 90's years on the whole were okay. Plus they did win a Superbowl in the 70's and 80's. What year was it the last year the Hawks flew a banner?

Greenlawler
11-19-2009, 06:08 PM
The Toronto Maple Leafs aren't listed. :confused:

They are consistently absent from post season play. But yet the arena is always filled to capacity. They are the most expensive team to go and see play in the NHL but the worst performers.

The Leafs are a common find on list like this as are the Bruins, Blue Jackets, Predators, and Islanders, and Thrashers. However the Leafs do make a heck of allot of cash and the franchise seems to be wildly profitable. Yet again the Leafs would probably be on the second list.
I would argue against their inclusion based on their fan base. The Blue Jackets and Coyotes are already moving more than likely so I eliminated them. The Predators, well there is a whole lot of misconceptions about this franchise, but that maybe the homer in me. The Thrashers are in a horrid sports market, and the Isles well come on the late 70's early 80's were just too good.

sportsguy2315
11-19-2009, 06:41 PM
True the Hawks are on the upswing but am I sensing a little "homeridus" :secret: they have been back for maybe two or three years, and they have not won a championship. . Rare is the list of this sort without the Blackhawks my friend. You tell me that I am wrong about empty buildings and yet the next sentence you confirm my point. So what the last two years have been good, but 40 years of fuetility cannot be erased in two seasons.
While my family IS from Chicago, I am not a Blackhawks fan, but I am happy to see an Original Six team come back to power, much like I'll be happy as a hockey fan to see Toronto and Boston excise their demons.

Tinksalot
11-19-2009, 07:06 PM
I don't know about the worst franchise ever. But right now I'm thinking it might be the Redskins. :(

disneyboundagain
11-20-2009, 12:36 AM
I don't follow sports THAT closely, but this is a no-brainer. The Pittsburgh Pirates are the worst professional team in any sport, EVER. The have has more consecutive losing seasons that any team, EVER! I'm not positive, but I think they are at 18 years in a row now. The sportscasters here make jokes about how bad they are and their "another loss" every day.

Greenlawler
11-20-2009, 01:16 AM
I don't follow sports THAT closely, but this is a no-brainer. The Pittsburgh Pirates are the worst professional team in any sport, EVER. The have has more consecutive losing seasons that any team, EVER! I'm not positive, but I think they are at 18 years in a row now. The sportscasters here make jokes about how bad they are and their "another loss" every day.


And yet the are multiple time World Series winners. Many of the teams on this list have never, ever won a championship. I agree the Pirates are in a woeful cycle, but they still have more World Series rings than about half of the MLB.

Hammer
11-20-2009, 01:36 AM
Worst is such a subjective thing to determine. The Pirates are bad, but that has more to do with that team's ownership than the players. The Pirates ownership group is a reason why I want a salary minimum and for teams who receive revenue sharing to provide an account on how that money is spent.

For the NFL, I'll say the Buffalo Bills. Until Ralph Wilson opens up the wallet and signs highly touted draft choices and stops playing bargain basement bingo with his choice for coach, the Bills will be a mess.

NBA, I'll go with the Clippers. You are in a basketball rich area, so stop running your franchise like buffoons!

Not enough of a hockey fan to make an educated choice for the NHL.

Nascfan
11-20-2009, 12:31 PM
For NFL, I'd have to go with the new Cleveland Browns. For NBA, I'd have to go with the Clippers.
Most the other ones on the list have won a championship of some sort, or at least come close at some point. So based on actual franchise history, even if "ancient", that's my picks.

Pagan
11-20-2009, 01:35 PM
Hate to say this, (well...no I don't, LOL) and I know gueli's gunna kill me, but why aren't the Jets one of the choices?

~ Haven't been to a Superbowl since 1969
~ Have only made the playoffs 10 times in the 40 years since.
~ Have finished above .500 only 16 times in their 49 years of existence.
~ Won/Loss record of 331-401, which means they could go undefeated for the next FOUR years straight and STILL have a losing all time record.
~ Have had only ONE coach (Bill Parcells) out of 16 with a winning record. (You can't count Al Groh, that was one season)

If that isn't futility, nothing is! :razz:

And gueli, before you even TRY to bring up the Dolphins...

~ Finished above .500 29 times in their 43 years
~ Were last in the superbowl in 1984
~ Have made the playoffs 22 times since 1969
~ Have a won/loss record of 380-272.

You can't win this one. :razz:

Greenlawler
11-20-2009, 02:14 PM
~ Have only made the playoffs 10 times in the 40 years since.

Pagan I know you are baiting Gueli, but the above quote is all the explanation needed. A 25% playoff appearence record would be a dream come true for a number NFL fans. Thats six more playoff runs than the Cards, 9 more than the Lions, and 9 more than the current incarnation of the Browns. Over those same years the other three NFL tyeams on the list's win loss records make the Jets look like Lombardi's Packers. I think you actually made the case yourself against inclusion.

If I could have a redo I probably would pull Golden State and include the Maple Leafs, Bengals, or Pirates. I would love to include the Jaguars due to their horrible fan base but they have been pretty consistintly average, not horrible on the field.

Scar
11-20-2009, 02:18 PM
~ Haven't been to a Superbowl since 1969
~ Have only made the playoffs 10 times in the 40 years since.
~ Have finished above .500 only 16 times in their 49 years of existence.
Sorry Pagan, but your way off on this one. The other three teams listed in the poll combined are 14 playoff appearences and 21 seasons over .500 and 1 Super Bowl appearence... that's combined for 3 teams (granted the Browns have only been around for 10 years.) The Jets don't come close to those 3 and don't deserve to be compared to them.

But yea, they're probably in the next batch.

ETA: Greenlawler beat me to it.

Scar
11-20-2009, 02:22 PM
Oh, and I just noticed...

How the heck do the Arizona Cardinals make both the elite and the worst polls. :confused:

I know, I know, the elite poll is this year and the worst is cummulative.

Pagan
11-20-2009, 02:40 PM
Boy...you guys know how to tinkle on a good joke, dontcha? :razz:

BTW...you can't include the Browns then in worst FRANCHISE.

The Cleveland Browns franchise at one time was the best in football. None of the others can claim that.

We're talking franchises, not just current incarnations of franchises. ;)

Pagan
11-20-2009, 02:49 PM
In fact...a little research shows that the Browns:

~ Have won 8 championships
~ Won/Loss Record is 428-372
~ Have made the playoffs 12 times since 1969
~ Have finished over .500 36 times in their 60 year history.
~ Have made the playoffs 28 times in 60 years.

Not for anything, ALL better than the Jets. So if they are included, why not the Jets?

Actually not baiting ot joking this time. This is a legitimate question.

Nascfan
11-20-2009, 02:49 PM
If you're going to combine the old Browns and the new Browns into one, I agree with you. That's why I specified new Browns as one of the worst.

Wasn't it just in the 80's that the Browns were a perennial playoff team with Bernie Kosar and the wizard of Ozzie Newsome? Not nearly as bad as long as some of the other teams.

Scar
11-20-2009, 02:50 PM
Boy...you guys know how to tinkle on a good joke, dontcha? :razz:

BTW...you can't include the Browns then in worst FRANCHISE.

The Cleveland Browns franchise at one time was the best in football. None of the others can claim that.

We're talking franchises, not just current incarnations of franchises. ;)I know this is up for debate, but as far as I'm concerned, the legacy of the Brown teams your talking about play in Baltimore now.

Pagan
11-20-2009, 02:50 PM
If you're going to combine the old Browns and the new Browns into one, I agree with you. That's why I specified new Browns as one of the worst.
You have to include them bro. The Cleveland Browns are the Cleveland Browns. Doesn't matter that there was a break. It's the franchise.


Wasn't it just in the 80's that the Browns were a perennial playoff team with Bernie Kosar and the wizard of Ozzie Newsome? Not nearly as bad as long as some of the other teams.
Yup...victims of "the fumble" and "the drive".

Pagan
11-20-2009, 02:52 PM
I know this is up for debate, but as far as I'm concerned, the legacy of the Brown teams your talking about play in Baltimore now.
That makes absolutely no sense scar.

If you go by that logic, NO team can be linked to their old teams...unless of course ALL the old players are playing still.

The current Miami Dolphins have NOTHING to do with the undefeated 1972 team. They even play in a different stadium. Doesn't mean they're not the Dolphins.

They play in Cleveland. They wear the same uniforms, they're called the Browns.

That makes them the Cleveland Browns.

Nascfan
11-20-2009, 02:54 PM
See, I went a different route in my thinking. When Modell moved them to Baltimore, in my thought process the franchise just moved there under a different name. Hence, the new Browns are a new franchise, follow where I'm going?
I see Scar took the same route.

But see, the old teams ARE still playing. The Miami Dolphins are still the Miami Dolphins. They didn't mover the Dolphins to another city, give them a new name, then bring in another Miami Dolphins team after a break since '72, did they?

Pagan
11-20-2009, 02:55 PM
That depends on how you want to look at it.

According to the NFL, it's the same team.

Go look it up. ;)

Scar
11-20-2009, 03:00 PM
That depends on how you want to look at it.

According to the NFL, it's the same team.

Go look it up. ;)Yes, but that is only because the NFL was scared from Cleveland threatening to sue them. They are the only US professional sports team (that I'm aware of) to get that.

Nascfan
11-20-2009, 03:05 PM
That depends on how you want to look at it.

According to the NFL, it's the same team.

Go look it up. ;)

Yeah, it's a matter of how we all want to look at it. I look at it as a different franchise, a new franchise as they ceased to exist when the franchise moved to Baltimore. Just like the Ravens are not the same franchise that existed in Baltimore under Unitas and others as the Colts, that franchis plays in Indianapolis now. Following your logic, Baltimore Ravens would be the same as the old Baltimore Colts, but it's all in how we all choose to look at it.

I honestly don't know how to look up the franchise license numbers, but I'm sure there's a way to get that information and really find out which team is truly which.

Pagan
11-20-2009, 03:10 PM
Yeah, it's a matter of how we all want to look at it. I look at it as a different franchise, a new franchise as they ceased to exist when the franchise moved to Baltimore. Just like the Ravens are not the same franchise that existed in Baltimore under Unitas and others as the Colts, that franchis plays in Indianapolis now. Following your logic, Baltimore Ravens would be the same as the old Baltimore Colts, but it's all in how we all choose to look at it.
If the Ravens were still called the Colts and still had a horseshoe on the side of the helmet, then I'd agree with you.


I honestly don't know how to look up the franchise license numbers, but I'm sure there's a way to get that information and really find out which team is truly which.
Wikipedia is a good start.

*EDIT* oh wait, license numbers. Nah, I have no idea either.

Nascfan
11-20-2009, 03:34 PM
*EDIT* oh wait, license numbers. Nah, I have no idea either.

Yeah, that's the only way to really know for 100% sure just which franchise is which.

Oh well, good discussion, just different points of view of a who's who of NFL teams. :)

Greenlawler
11-20-2009, 04:11 PM
The Browns franchise as I look at it for the sake of the poll is the current franchise.

The old Browns are in fact the Ravens. Just like the old Colts are the new Colts, the St.Louis Rams are the L.A. Rams, and the Oilers are the Titans. The Browns were an expansion team, and in their brief stay in football they have proceeded to be outdone by just about every franchise in the NFL including the recent expansion brothers.

If we were talking Browns of old they would not be on this list.

Greenlawler
11-20-2009, 04:25 PM
here is an interesting question then. Who are the worst ten franchises in football?


Remember I am not taking into account the current status of the team. The fans, history, tradition, all should be noted:

1. Lions: Obvious answer
2. Browns (current run) A new level of fuetlity
3. Cardinals: Four playoff total
4. Bengals: Ownership, dismal decades with rare glimpses of greatness
5. Falcons: Empty seats, lackluster fans
6. Saints: How many playoff runs? Before Katrina most people felt little pity for the worst franchise at the time, by far.
7. Texans: While young they have yet to produced a single winning season.
8. Jaguars: Just watch in awe of that empty stadium
9. Raiders: While a traditional powerhouse for years the constant moving, the coaching follies, and Al Davis give them a spot here.
10. Seahawks: Where 8-8 is a state of mind

Pagan
11-20-2009, 04:43 PM
here is an interesting question then. Who are the worst ten franchises in football?


Remember I am not taking into account the current status of the team. The fans, history, tradition, all should be noted:

1. Lions: Obvious answer
2. Browns (current run) A new level of fuetlity
3. Cardinals: Four playoff total
4. Bengals: Ownership, dismal decades with rare glimpses of greatness
5. Falcons: Empty seats, lackluster fans
6. Saints: How many playoff runs? Before Katrina most people felt little pity for the worst franchise at the time, by far.
7. Texans: While young they have yet to produced a single winning season.
8. Jaguars: Just watch in awe of that empty stadium
9. Raiders: While a traditional powerhouse for years the constant moving, the coaching follies, and Al Davis give them a spot here.
10. Seahawks: Where 8-8 is a state of mind
Good list, but again...where are the Jets? Not trying to annoy Jet fans, but surely the Raiders history is more storied than the Jets.

If the Seahawks are listed due to 8-8 being a state of mine, that would certainly be a move upward historically for the NY franchise.

Greenlawler
11-20-2009, 04:57 PM
Good list, but again...where are the Jets? Not trying to annoy Jet fans, but surely the Raiders history is more storied than the Jets.

If the Seahawks are listed due to 8-8 being a state of mine, that would certainly be a move upward historically for the NY franchise.

There are other reasons why I listed the Seahawks, but I did not want to write a novel.

Look the Jets franchise is not a bad franchise. They are among the most loyal fans in the league, thier stability, fan support (they are always in the top ten in attendance), overcomes allot of their miscues on the field. Really you are looking through Dolphins colored glasses. BTW the Jets outdrew the Phins by 10,000 fans last year. I wish I could rank the Ravens or Colts (who have horrible band wagon fans ;)) here but I know that would be personal bias.

I guess if you are forcing my hand I am not sure where I would place the Jets. I am certain I would rank Tampa Bay at 11. Who since 1980 has had a winning percentage of .395 the fourth worst in all of pro sports. At 12 Carolina. Then however the word worst franchise really does not cut it, as we venture to the middle of the road franchises.

Nascfan
11-20-2009, 05:05 PM
The Browns franchise as I look at it for the sake of the poll is the current franchise.

The old Browns are in fact the Ravens. Just like the old Colts are the new Colts, the St.Louis Rams are the L.A. Rams, and the Oilers are the Titans. The Browns were an expansion team, and in their brief stay in football they have proceeded to be outdone by just about every franchise in the NFL including the recent expansion brothers.

If we were talking Browns of old they would not be on this list.

Thanks for the clarification of the context of the poll, lawler. I'll stand by my original vote then.

Pagan
11-20-2009, 05:33 PM
Look the Jets franchise is not a bad franchise. They are among the most loyal fans in the league, thier stability, fan support (they are always in the top ten in attendance), overcomes allot of their miscues on the field.
So losing on a consistent basis doesn't count as long as your fans are loyal?

Then you need to remove Cleveland from the list. Maybe the last two years things have changed, but according to the bizjournals.com, as of 2006 the Browns are ranked #1 in fan loyalty since re-entering the league. They have sold out more home games than any other team in the NFL. ;)


Really you are looking through Dolphins colored glasses. BTW the Jets outdrew the Phins by 10,000 fans last year.
C'mon bro, you're really reaching here.

That's 1,125 more a game. Considering the Jets can draw from NY, NJ, and CT while the Dolphins are strictly South Florida based, that's not bad at all. You can't compare the markets.

The Dolphins' market population is 6,011,633.
The Jets' market population is 22,913,496.

And they only draw 1,125 more a game? That's embarrassing if you ask me.

Also, the Giants, playing in the same stadium with the same market population, consistently draw 24,000 or more than they Jets each year.

Greenlawler
11-20-2009, 06:24 PM
Pagan I truly bow before your internet debating skill.

I will not relent, how can the Browns have had more sellouts than any NFL team? The Redskins have sold out every home game since 1968.

Plus

Speaking of reaching you posted...... "That's 1,125 more a game. Considering the Jets can draw from NY, NJ, and CT while the Dolphins are strictly South Florida based, that's not bad at all. You can't compare the markets."

Interesting thoughts but inaccuarate. While the numbers maybe right the Dolphins do not share their market with any other team. Perahps their are some Bucs fans, but I doubt it. In fact its 4 hours to the closest NFL team, added to that the Bucs and Jags are relativley younger franchises. Miami had a head start enough to claim most of Florida. Yet the Jets however share their market with The Bills, Patriots, Giants, and Eagles all of whom are down the road a little ways. To say the Jets own CT. is a joke. In fact the Ravens and the Redskins are closer to the Jets than the nearest NFL team is to the Phins.

Besides attendance is the only thing the Browns having going for them. I refuse to give in to your Jet abuse. Although I will commit them to 13th on my list, after more research.

Scar
11-20-2009, 06:48 PM
While the numbers maybe right the Dolphins do not share their market with any other team.Yea, but they share it with all the retired Jets and Giants fans that moved down there. ;)

I'm not saying it's the same about football, but I know when the Mets play the Marlins, It's like a Mets home game. Of course, they usually lose just like at home....

Pagan
11-20-2009, 08:44 PM
Pagan I truly bow before your internet debating skill.
A debate is only as good as both parties make it. ;)


I will not relent, how can the Browns have had more sellouts than any NFL team? The Redskins have sold out every home game since 1968.
Look it up bro...they are #1.


Speaking of reaching you posted...... "That's 1,125 more a game. Considering the Jets can draw from NY, NJ, and CT while the Dolphins are strictly South Florida based, that's not bad at all. You can't compare the markets."

Interesting thoughts but inaccuarate. While the numbers maybe right the Dolphins do not share their market with any other team. Perahps their are some Bucs fans, but I doubt it. In fact its 4 hours to the closest NFL team, added to that the Bucs and Jags are relativley younger franchises. Miami had a head start enough to claim most of Florida. Yet the Jets however share their market with The Bills, Patriots, Giants, and Eagles all of whom are down the road a little ways. To say the Jets own CT. is a joke. In fact the Ravens and the Redskins are closer to the Jets than the nearest NFL team is to the Phins.
First of all...there are NO Eagles fans in NY. i can almost guarantee you that! It may be close geographically, but as a rule New York sports fans LOATHE Philly teams. And I never said the Jets own CT...the Giants do. But there are fans there. You forget, I live up here and I'm in CT all the time.

Even more puzzling is that you state that Miami is four hours from the nearest NFL franchise, yet you cite Philly, Buffalo, Baltimore, New England and Washington as possibly sharing the Jets market.

Um...I'd like to know what kind of car you drive that can make it to ANY of these cities from East Rutherford in less than 4 hours! LOL! I have NO idea how you can possibly use that as an example!!!

The ONLY team sharing the market with the Jets is the Giants...so cut that 22 million in half and you have 11 million...still 5 million more than the Dolphins, yet only 1,125 more people at each home game.


Besides attendance is the only thing the Browns having going for them. I refuse to give in to your Jet abuse. Although I will commit them to 13th on my list, after more research.
Okay, then what do the jets have going for them? Well...aside from the fact that they're still clinging to one game 40 years ago that was won bvy a quarterback who wore pantyhose? (okay, okay...i HAD to go there! LOL!)

gueli
11-20-2009, 11:32 PM
Hate to say this, (well...no I don't, LOL) and I know gueli's gunna kill me, but why aren't the Jets one of the choices?
If that isn't futility, nothing is! :razz:..
And gueli, before you even TRY to bring up the Dolphins...

I am not gonna kill ya. Truth is I like our going back and forth where we disagree (miami/Jets) and when we agree (penguins & yankees).
While we stink, more often than not, the G men overshadow us (as in much like the mets/yankees) of the 2 franchises the Giants have been, continue to be and probably will always be more successful.

Why would I try to bring the dolphins into this :confused:, its not like it has been as long for them as for us. Plus coach shula was a heck of a coach, who had longterm great success. While the Jets have a great number of blunders, both in coaching and management. I mean its no wonder Billicheck after 1 day, resigned as "HC of the NYJ".
Should the jets be included- probably. But everyone remembers them for the superbowl prediction, and that they pulled it off once. (Miami won it 2x if I am not mistaken)- also miami is known for the perfect season.
But like many of the jet faithful- Win lose, tie or die- we will keep rooting and cheering their successes- not lamenting about their obvious blunders.
Its is how the "same old Jets" saying got started.

gueli
11-20-2009, 11:36 PM
I'll agree with you there to a point, anyone crazy enough to hire Mike Milbury as a GM is an automatic qualifier. However, at least you guys aren't bankrupt like Phoenix and y'all are off to a decent start...

:confused: good start. we didn't win a game the first 6 or 7. The reason the Islanders aren't bankrupt- Charles wang is minimizing the payroll so they ONLY lose 20 million a year !!! The owner has deep pockets & wants a new stadium.

gueli
11-21-2009, 12:01 AM
Sorry about 3 posts in a row, but... I should have read the entire thread before commenting.

As far as records go, Pagan, the fish won the superbowl when ? had the perfect season when ? :-o

Thanks to many who have stuck up for the jets. Truth is, much like the beloved Cubs, the Jets are just too well liked, or hated. They have success where it counts (in the money coffers of the NFL) to be one of the worst. As stated above I do not consider the dolphins lack of winning the big game in 35 years to be the mark of the worst franchise tag, just like the Jets.
In looking at some of the lists - a couple of points-

Expansion teams (this includes the browns)
-Usually do not have great success within 15 to 20 years of their inception. There are too many factors against them. because of that, how can the New browns even count on the list, except for recent developments (Ok Ok since their recreation). Let alone the Texans- who are starting to put a team together (good O, pourus D) in the last 2 years.
The Lions longevity, plus their futility put them at the top of the "worst" list.
Tampa Bay, as an expansion team won how many games in its first 20 years ? and yet you rate them better than the raiders. The raiders have been to the big show, have won numerous playoff games, and have a tremendous (although fed up with their lack of moving foward these past few years) fan base.
If you are going to look at historic figures, you have to take into account ALL the stuff that has happened to the NFL since its inception (or the merger if you only want to go back that far). But a number of teams, including the Raiders, have had success, albiet in the past.
Perhaps to be included in the list you should have some parameters- you know what makes a bad team part of the worst.
Teams that have Never won the superbowl, or made it to a championship game. How many would that be ?
Teams that have fared poorly in attendance- over the past, say 10 years (or pick some other number).
and a winning percentage record (or loosing).
If you take these into account, than you can make arguments for many teams, and be able to rate them in something other than a subjective term.

Oh and lastly, while the jets may not be a great franchise, pagan, based on how much you lothe them, they must have had some success :D
Thanks all, Goodnight
:beer:

Greenlawler
11-21-2009, 01:22 AM
Well I did set some parameters but I should have been more specific. I am also not a professional I did it simply based on my research, which I will endeavor to do more of.

The parameters are four in total
1. Championships/ Winning Percentage
2. Fan Base (This is somewhat subjective)
3. Current state of the organization as a whole
4. Ticket Sales

I did my best to rank the teams based on these parameters but will do a more complete sweeping list of all teams.

gueli
11-21-2009, 02:02 AM
Well I did set some parameters but I should have been more specific. I am also not a professional I did it simply based on my research, which I will endeavor to do more of.

The parameters are four in total
1. Championships/ Winning Percentage
2. Fan Base (This is somewhat subjective)
3. Current state of the organization as a whole
4. Ticket Sales

I did my best to rank the teams based on these parameters but will do a more complete sweeping list of all teams.

Cool but...
1. Lions: Obvious answer agreed
2. Browns (current run) A new level of fuetlity Can accept this too
3. Cardinals: Four playoff total Not relavent, they made it to the big game
4. Bengals: Ownership, dismal decades with rare glimpses of greatness Current state percludes them
5. Falcons: Empty seats, lackluster fans tough one, looked good early & had success last year
6. Saints: How many playoff runs? Before Katrina most people felt little pity for the worst franchise at the time, by far. Recent Success, and current run doesn't make sense
7. Texans: While young they have yet to produced a single winning season. OK explosive offense, but expansion team still growing. also dont they sell out now?
8. Jaguars: Just watch in awe of that empty stadium 'Nuff said
9. Raiders: While a traditional powerhouse for years the constant moving, the coaching follies, and Al Davis give them a spot here. Fan Base is extrodinary, may be down on them now but fan base is nationwide, excludes them from worst
10. Seahawks: Where 8-8 is a state of mind but not far removed from playoff contender

OK I include my comments next to them
now for a few
Tampa Bay- perrenial loser, except for the gruiden years (plus 1 or 2) now back to being stomped on

both New orleans & bengals success this year is promising, but if you are including them, miami was 1 and 15 2 years ago (dig at pagan :D) I would think with the current success of both teams (The saints have had more success the past few years) that the argument doesnt hold water. If you are looking over a peroid of time, bengals are like the jets but no championships (and jets attendance is better)

Cardnals prior to last year- yes they are included, but last years success and fitz being so promising, I wouldn't include them. they could make another run at the championship. their current state should exclude them.

If you are looking recently Washington has had similar problems with losing and ownership.

Also the Bills are in dispair. The chiefs have had quite a few problem seasons. also lets not forget about the rams (but they won the game not to long ago), da bears (but they are too loved), and carolina (again made it to the show not to long ago)
Again- based on the specifics you provide, the raiders should not be there due to fan base (subjective yes, but how many raider shirts do you see out there, or if you walked into a bar, would you find a fan ?I think so)

Greenlawler
11-21-2009, 02:52 AM
Interesting responses but I would counter many of them. Each team has strengths and weaknesses based on the criteria. Recent sucsess is just one premise and cannot be allowed to inflate reputation. For every reason to include the Rams there are reasons to disclude them. I think we can all agree on these for inclusion disregarding order...
Detroit
Cleveland
Jacksonville

and mostly agree on
Cincy
New Orleans
Cards
Falcons

Who we don't agree on
But the Seahawks, and Texans are somehow getting some arguement but they cannot be rated much higher. And I am not unreasonable enough to say I may be wrong about the Raiders.

AS for the Cards, for a franchise 40 years old one Super Bowl run does not erase the leagues worst winning percentage until then. Just because you make it to the big game once does not validate 40 years. Therefore Cards for sure make the list. Saints same story. Does anyone remember the Aint's? Until recently the Saints were simply the likable bottom feeders of the league. Recent wins and tradition of losses must be weighed evenly.
One point you must remember their are only 32 teams. Ten teams is a thrid of the league. If you are arguing against inclusion of half of the teams you need 5 teams to replace them. I have scowered the web for numbers and similar polls. Most of these seem to back me up. With one exception.... The Raiders, I guess I just got carried away by the current state of the team. They should be replaced by the Bucs. The Bengals are not like the Jets funny that I seem to be the one defending your team ;). The management of the Bengals is routinley ranked as one of the worst in pro sports.

I have already relented on the Bucs they can replace the Raiders. The Rams may be an interesting thought as well, but I don't think they expel any of the other 10 teams. The Bills could get some votes but they did have a pretty solid run in the 90's but like I said a few good years cannot erase the bad totally so maybe they deserve some mention. But then you would have to consider teams like the Dolphins, Vikings Chargers, Titans, Colts, and Bears who all had bad runs for extended stretches.On the other hand each of these teams has been a solid contender for an extended amount of years at various points and fan support for each of the previous teams is strong. Although the Colts and Vikings were routinley mentioned as moving candidates until their recent upswings.. Even the Packers and Cowboys toiled away hapless for long stretches of time but I certainly would not consider any of these teams loosing seasons enough to erase years of legitimcy. Heck just about every team has a bad stretch even the Pats, 49ers, and Steelers. The question is, were those bad stretches long enough to overshadow the bad? In the Saints, Bengals, Falcons, and Cards cases I would say no. Plus for each of these teams fan support has been weak at times. In the case of the Bills and Rams I would say yes (don't forget the Rams of the late 70's in addition to the early 2000's).

As for the Seahawks I would say they are on the bubble clearly. They have not put together a long enough contender run to justify dismissal from consideration. Sure they are perinial mid card workers, but excluding very few good years what have they done? They had a run recently of a few contending years, and then maybe the Zorn to Largent era was okay but that is it. 30 years with nothing special save a Super Bowl loss.

As for the Texans. Where would they rank, if they do not belong at the bottom? Even with their new found offense they only a few losses from missing the playoffs again. Before you say but they are a few wins away from...let me cut you off. How many years have they been in the league? With the instant results built into the new franchises and the radical change of foruned in the NFL expansion is not what it used to be. Teams no longer need 15 years. These days that is no free pass for loosing. Both the Jags and the Panthers were contenders long before this point in their history.

I will like I said take time to re-rank but I would love to see you guys post your rankings.

gueli
11-21-2009, 06:56 AM
Excellent reply.
Perhaps I was too tounge & cheek about the jets. However at times their managment choices...(let me drop one name- Rich Kotite)

NFL 10 worst franchises by gueli

1-Lions
2-(New) Clevland Browns
3-Bills
4-Cincinati (you made a good point)
5-Tampa Bay
6-Kansas City
7-Jacksonville
8- rams
9-Falcons
10-Redskins

now for some reasons- the top four have been floundering for the past 10-15 years. Cinci is the one team that is having some success, and they might be this years playoff darling, but for too many years they were some of the worst.
Tampa had a few good years but they seem to have lost it again- and they had the worst record when they started.
KC- when did they have a good season?
Rams- moved, had some success, but now -are they on any track ?
Your point about attendance is noted for the falcons.
I Include the redskins because of their owner- but they are my weakest selection.

for those who did not make my list- Texans- I have heard that they have decent attendance #'s and they seem to have management in place to keep them going.
the cards have had too much recent success, and again the foundation of their current team seems good, which means managment has done something right. If they fall apart in a year or 2, they would be back on my list in an instant. SF has too much of a fan base. same with raiders, jets, da bears and some others.
Seahawks are on the bubble - never great, but more often than not a solid team (8-8).
The saints- many years a bad team, but now their managment seems to have it right, they have some real good players, and their success over the past 2 season does not wipe their history out, but how many games have they not sold out ? Recently ? again pushes them beyond the top 10 worst.
And remember- there was a time before Bob Kraft & Billicheck, when the pats would have been on the list. Kudo's to them for turning that franchise into a powerhouse.

Now its time for everyone else to rip my list & write their own.
:beer:

Hammer
11-21-2009, 02:35 PM
First of all...there are NO Eagles fans in NY. i can almost guarantee you that! It may be close geographically, but as a rule New York sports fans LOATHE Philly teams.

Pagan, you are totally wrong with this comment. My sister works in NYC and is an Eagles fan. Now true, she lives in Weehawken (just across the river), but her co-worker Justin is also an Eagles fan and does live in NYC. I know for a fact that there are bars that are "Eagles" bars in the city where transplanted Eagles fans can go and watch their team. There are also bars dedicated for Steeler fans too. They are nice bars, too, not dives.


Even more puzzling is that you state that Miami is four hours from the nearest NFL franchise, yet you cite Philly, Buffalo, Baltimore, New England and Washington as possibly sharing the Jets market.

Um...I'd like to know what kind of car you drive that can make it to ANY of these cities from East Rutherford in less than 4 hours! LOL! I have NO idea how you can possibly use that as an example!!!

You can easily make Philly to NYC in less than 2 hours by car. Meadowlands, we are talking 1 hour and 20 minutes on the NJ Turnpike. Baltimore and Washington are about 3 hours away. Not driving like Speed Racer either.

Ian
11-21-2009, 03:56 PM
You can easily make Philly to NYC in less than 2 hours by car. Meadowlands, we are talking 1 hour and 20 minutes on the NJ Turnpike. Baltimore and Washington are about 3 hours away. Not driving like Speed Racer either.Just to back Christine up, I've routinely made all these drives in the amount of time she specifies, if not less.

In fact, if you use take the train it's even less time.

Greenlawler
11-22-2009, 04:23 PM
okay here are my exhaustive rankings I took the parameters and rated each team 1-32 then I added the totals and here is what I got. Remember each parameter counted equal so teams who may be doing excellent now were rated just as fairly on their fan base and winning over the years. On the contrary teams not doing so well now and recently I.E. the Bears were helped a great deal by other factors.

1. Steelers (no shock here)
2. Packers (also not a shock)
3. Cowboys (Upseting as it is)
4. Giants (Surprised that they topped the Patriots)
5. Patriots (Thought they would have been higher)
6. Dolphins (Wow this one caught me off gaurd)
7. Broncos (Not a shock, great fans, tradition)
8. 49ers (To bad the 80's and 90's could not erase the 70's and the last decade)
9.Colts (while their fans are suspect the Colts put in a solid showing)
10. Redskins (Ownership mess took them down a notch)
11. Ravens (including Browns era, maybe a bit high but went by the numbers)
12. Raiders ( Big shock here, tradition and fanbase carried the day)
13. Eagles (lack of rings, but great fans)
14. Chargers (solid spot for this team)
15. Bears (fanbase and tradition)
16. Titans (middle of the pack in every category)
17. Vikings (rumors of LA move may have hurt)
18. Chiefs (fans helped once again)
19. Jets (broken record fans helped)
20. Bills (broken franchise had enough history to stay out of the bottom)
21. Saints (recent upswing helped)
22. Rams (70's and 2000's Rams hid a lot of bad years and fanbase)
23. Panthers (just too young to be higher)
24. Bengals (super bowl loses actually helped plus the recent upswing)
25. Falcons (fanbase hurt)
26. Browns (current team, fans kept them from the very bottom)
27. Cardinals (despite Super Bowl run their still the Cards)
28. Seahawks (aa bit surprised by this but once again the numbers were there)
29. Bucs (one Super Bowl win did little to help one of the worst winning % ever)
30. Texans (very young franchise could not overcome miserable start)
31. Jaguars (shocked at how low they are)
32. Lions (figures)

Observations:
-The Jets are not in the bottom ten
-While the fanbase boilstered many teams like the Browns a great deal, the Texans where helped a little. I just could not give them any high marks on tradition and winning %.
-I assumed the Patriots would fare better, but #5 is nothing to be ashamed of.
- I was completley impartial, and while it pained me to se the Colts in the top ten, Ravens at 11, and Cowboys at three, I was true to the evaluation.

Let the debate begin

gueli
11-22-2009, 07:11 PM
5. Patriots (Thought they would have been higher) You forget the bad years
6. Dolphins (Wow this one caught me off gaurd) Coach Shula, Dan Marino
...
12. Raiders ( Big shock here, tradition and fanbase carried the day) Ah my point is proven
19. Jets (broken record fans helped) No suprise here
20. Bills (broken franchise had enough history to stay out of the bottom) But not by much

I am also glad to see I was correct about Tampa Bay.
Thanks for the rankings, I posted comments next to the teams with my thoughts...

indytraveler
11-23-2009, 11:29 AM
I picked the Clippers since they have won absolutely NOTHING in their franchise history. The Grizzlies are a very close second. Memphis has only moved once Clippers have moved three times. OK the third time was within the same city.

The Lions are everyone's favorite because of this decade. You tend to forget that they were decent in the late 80's and 90's until Barry Sanders retired. Ask Favre how difficult it was to win in Detroit in his early years. Conduct this poll next April and there would be more votes for the NBA franchises.

How the Cubs escaped this poll I don't know. 100+ years without winning!

gueli
11-23-2009, 01:49 PM
How the Cubs escaped this poll I don't know. 100+ years without winning!

I made mention of them...but they have that fan base...
and the we will get them next year attitude
:mickey:

Greenlawler
11-23-2009, 03:14 PM
I picked the Clippers since they have won absolutely NOTHING in their franchise history. The Grizzlies are a very close second. Memphis has only moved once Clippers have moved three times. OK the third time was within the same city.

The Lions are everyone's favorite because of this decade. You tend to forget that they were decent in the late 80's and 90's until Barry Sanders retired. Ask Favre how difficult it was to win in Detroit in his early years. Conduct this poll next April and there would be more votes for the NBA franchises.

How the Cubs escaped this poll I don't know. 100+ years without winning!

1. Moving has little to do with the greatness of a franchise. The Browns were solid in Cleveland and the Colts were fine in Baltiomore before the moves.
2. As for the Lions, you do realize even with Barry Sanders the Lions did not win a single playoff game during that time? That is in spite of having the greatest running back of the era on their team. Since 1957 they have the worst winning percentage of any team in the NFL. Sure ask Brett Favre he beat the Lions twice in Detroit in the playoffs.
3. The poll included tradition and fanbase that is why the Cubs had no business here. The question was "worst franchise" the total package not "franchise that looses the most".

Pagan
11-23-2009, 05:21 PM
But then you would have to consider teams like the Dolphins, Vikings Chargers, Titans, Colts, and Bears who all had bad runs for extended stretches.
You need to do some research my friend. Since the Dolphins made the transition from expension team into playoff contender in 1970, they have only ONCE had more than one losing season in a row. That came in 2006 and 2007. There have been no "extended stretches" of bad seasons for the Phins.

Making the playoffs 22 times in 43 years is kind of amazing. So is a 385-277-4 career record.

Greenlawler
11-24-2009, 01:23 AM
You need to do some research my friend. Since the Dolphins made the transition from expension team into playoff contender in 1970, they have only ONCE had more than one losing season in a row. That came in 2006 and 2007. There have been no "extended stretches" of bad seasons for the Phins.

Making the playoffs 22 times in 43 years is kind of amazing. So is a 385-277-4 career record.

I think the key statement you made was your own addmission. The Dolphins may have been young but in 66,67,68,69 they did not manage more than 5 wins. Expansion team blah blah blah. I would also include 2004-2007 as a stretch of bad seasons although there was one incredible 9 win year. However I think you are probably correct, and I am not one who can not own up to making a mistake. However I did do my research, I just embelished a little. Can't you just be satisfied I ranked your team 6th. ;).

Pagan
11-24-2009, 11:22 AM
I think the key statement you made was your own addmission. The Dolphins may have been young but in 66,67,68,69 they did not manage more than 5 wins. Expansion team blah blah blah. I would also include 2004-2007 as a stretch of bad seasons although there was one incredible 9 win year. However I think you are probably correct, and I am not one who can not own up to making a mistake. However I did do my research, I just embelished a little. Can't you just be satisfied I ranked your team 6th. ;).
If I was ever satisfied, would I truly be a die-hard fan? ;)