King Kamala Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 What do you guys think is the worst franchise in North American sports? I didn't include hockey because frankly I hardly know the difference between the little circular disc and the Real World cast member *crickets chirp*. I have to go with the Cardinals on this one as they have an ugly empty stadium, has never been to the Super Bowl and regularly suck. They're the total package while some of the other teams have potential in at least one aspect.
the max Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 Nice jabs at hockey there...fuckass I pick the Orioles.
King Kamala Posted September 21, 2003 Author Report Posted September 21, 2003 Nice jabs at hockey there...fuckass I pick the Orioles. I wasn't trying to insult hockey...I was just trying to say I don't know a damn thing about it fuckass.
treble Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 Probably the Expos, due to their horrible ownership picture over the past several years. I hate to do it, but I'd have to pick them. At least most of the teams listed there have no arenas or stadiums either already built or on the way in the next few years. The Expos have some good players to build around, but you don't know if those guys are still going to be there in the next year or so (or even where the team is going to be) because they've been dicked around so badly.
Guest ToddRoyal Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 Tigers. No contest. The Expos and Orioles look like the freakin Braves or Yankees compared to the Tigers. The Cardinals and Bengals are bad, but they only lose 10-15 games a season. The Tigers are managing to lose 125 or so. Yikes.
razazteca Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 The Cardinals are the worst, it does not matter what sport the Cardinals just suck all the fun out of it. Losing 80% of your games and not being in the playoffs in 10+ years will kill interest fast. The only time the Cardinals ever had a good season was when Buddy Ryan was the coach and brought some Eagles with him.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 Why are the Mets, Lions and Expos even on here. The Mets went to the World Series not to long ago, the Lions were a playoff contender until 2 seasons ago, the Expos are above .500 right now even though they have to play at 2 different home sites. The Cardinals are the only team on this list that even can be considered. They trade away anyone who has talent. Think of the team they could have right now if they would've kept Plummer, Boston and let Shipp have the ball instead of Emmitt. At least the Bengals recognize talent and try to get them locked up for as long as possible.
Guest Choken One Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 The bengals unlike MANY teams can claim to been to Two superbowls and both of those are considered among the best of all time, and I believe the 89 SB is the highest rated SB but don't quote me on that. The bengals make profit annually and still have a large fanbase... Arizona is the absolute SUCK. They drew 23,000 last week...Never been deep in the playoffs, Don't even have a FRANCHISE player in it's history...Bengals will give you Munoz, Boomer, Dillon, Woods and others... Lions, thought never deep in the playoffs have plenty expirence...and are a legendary team just in a down time at the moment. Clippers make extrodinary profit each season so you can call them the worst franchise because the design of the team isn't to be the best... Mets? For the late 90's were contenders every year, and have fielded two World Championship teams... The rest are just dry forgettable teams.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 I don't think he's dissing the NHL. Truth be told, he's got a point. It was a toss-up between the Cards and Clips -- I went the football route due to the way Arizona managment treated Boomer Esiason...
CanadianChris Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 Nice jabs at hockey there...fuckass I pick the Orioles. I wasn't trying to insult hockey...I was just trying to say I don't know a damn thing about it fuckass. So change the subtitle to "sports I don't watch," rather than "sports no one watches," fuckass. It's the New York Rangers, but on this list, it has to be the Cardinals.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 EDIT -- misread CC's last post. Oops...
King Kamala Posted September 21, 2003 Author Report Posted September 21, 2003 It's been the Big 3 since the glory days of Wayne Gretzky ended. I think the only time I ever thought hockey was on the level of the other three sports was (no joking) when Wayne Gretzky was on that cartoon where he, Bo Jackson and Michael Jordan busted criminals
Guest Anglesault Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 Historically, the Tigers are a much better team than this, So I don't think it's fair to say that they are the worst franchise in North America when there are teams like the Texas Rangers who have never ever won anything under any name.
King Kamala Posted September 21, 2003 Author Report Posted September 21, 2003 If everybody's talking about how they'd vote for the Orioles and whatnot than why aren't they voting for other? I should have put the Brewers and Pirates on the list seeing how they haven't had winning seasons in almost a dozen years.
Guest Choken One Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 Pirates had a few winning seasons 12 years ago..In the late 80's early 90's...they were a contending team...So just because you haven't won in the last 10 or so years...doesn't mean your the WORST franchise...you have you look historically... And the Arizona Cardinals are EASILY THE WORST.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 Now I've got a criticism Uganda -- is this the worst fanchise ever, the last 20 years, etc. I was assuming it was ever...
King Kamala Posted September 21, 2003 Author Report Posted September 21, 2003 I'm saying worst franchise out there currently. I should have worded it better.
CanadianChris Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 I'm saying worst franchise out there currently. I should have worded it better. Yep. Definitely the NY Rangers.
The Czech Republic Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 The Rangers aren't so much bad as they just are not as good as they should be given their money.
starvenger Posted September 22, 2003 Report Posted September 22, 2003 The Cardinals and Bengals are bad, but they only lose 10-15 games a season. The Tigers are managing to lose 125 or so. Yikes. OK, so going 1-15 isn't bad? IIRC, the Cardinals have had very few winning seasons (i.e. > .500) since WWII. The Tigers, at least, have won a league title. So from an overall standpoint, it's probably the NFL Cardinals. As for the NY Rangers, I'm not sure that they're the worst over the past year, but they definitely are the team with the most wasted potential. But I'm thinking that once Moose retires the "Ewing Theory" (you play better once your marquee player is injured long term/retires) will kick in and they'll go far in the playoffs. But, my pick for this year is any of the 3 pro teams that use a tiger motif. Consider: Detroit Tigers (38-117). I'll say this about the Tigers - I think that their starting staff would have much better records if their O didn't suck. And FWIW, I think that they're better than the 1962 Mets. Cincinnati Bengals (0-3). The Bengals are rebuilding AGAIN, but at least they're doing it somewhat right, by leaving Kitna out there and bringing Carson Palmer along slowly. The last two games have at least been by a touchdown or less. Hamilton Tiger-Cats (1-13). The Ticats won their first game last week, and their point differential is 246 against, or 17.6 pts per game. Well, at least they don't have the owner's son playing QB for them.
razazteca Posted September 22, 2003 Report Posted September 22, 2003 Well your all wrong the correct answer is Women's Soccer. When your only tv exposure is the PAX channel and your up against the NFL, your looking for trouble.
Just John Posted September 23, 2003 Report Posted September 23, 2003 I voted for the Clippers, but it was a last second decision over the Cardinals. They both seem to never keep thier good players for any length or period of time. However, the Cards have won a playoff game within the last 5 years (20-7 over Dallas in the '99 wild card)
Guest BobbyWhioux Posted September 23, 2003 Report Posted September 23, 2003 In Basketball, I guess it has to be The Clippers. But then, are the Warriors much better? I mean, at least with the Clippers you know the ownership is just out to turn a profit (and the Clippers do turn a profit, so at least they do SOMETHING right). Sometimes I get the impression that the Warriors are destined to be owned by incompetents OR penny pinchers OR people with no cohesive/coherent direction. In Football, it's The Cardinals, primarily for longevity. They've sucked and done nothing for EIGHTY YEARS. All the other historically hapless teams are only a few years old, 30 something at most. I mean, at least the Bungles made it to the super bowl a couple of times, and just had the misfortune of running into the 49ers when they were one of the best teams of all time (and still played them pretty tough). At least the Saints flicker to life now and then. The Lions and Browns used to have glory days in the 50's at least. And while the Seahawks have pretty much sucked since day 1 with a couple exceptions (looks like this year is going to be an exception, too) they've only been generally hapless for 30 years. It's the Cardinals all the way. They've moved twice, they never draw, they never win, and they lose boring (at least when the Bungles lose, they manage to be creative and amusing about it). And I think that playoff win over Dallas is their ONLY POSTSEASON VICTORY EVER IN 80 YEARS. Or maybe their second, I dunno. Baseball: How about the Milwaukee Brewers? Cellar dwellers year after year. They never contend in the American OR National league, apart from Robin Yount they've not had any famously great players (Unless you count the last year of Hank Aaron's career, but that's reaching quite a bit). They've made one series appearance and they lost it, and haven't come close since. All they need to do now is start trotting out physical oddities to pinch hit, and it'll be like the St. Louis Browns have come back to life.
Guest Smark-Raving Mad Posted September 23, 2003 Report Posted September 23, 2003 Aren't the Red Wings and Tigers owned by the same guy? How the hell does that work? Does the guy realize he owns the Tigers? I had to go with a baseball team, because that seems like the sport where the talent is the most spread out. And the Tigers are about to become the single worst team EVER in baseball. It wasn't that long ago that the Cardinals went to the playoffs and won a game. I'll give the Bengals some points for at the very least putting up a good facade of wanting to win by hiring Marvin Lewis. I can't remember the last time the Tigers did anything.
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted September 23, 2003 Report Posted September 23, 2003 Right now, at this very moment, it's the Chicago Bears. They've got Urlacher...and Urlacher.
Guest Choken One Posted September 23, 2003 Report Posted September 23, 2003 Yeah but they make playoffs occasionally and hold a Sb title and make huge profit... Cards are still the worst ever.
starvenger Posted September 23, 2003 Report Posted September 23, 2003 Aren't the Red Wings and Tigers owned by the same guy? How the hell does that work? Does the guy realize he owns the Tigers? Yes, Mike Illitch owns both the Red Wings and the Tigers, but I think that his kids run the baseball operation. With that being said though, Detroit trademarked the name Hockeytown USA, so that may give you an idea of where baseball stands in Motown... I can't remember the last time the Tigers did anything. It was when they had names like Trammell, Whitaker, Lemon and Morris playing for them.
starvenger Posted September 23, 2003 Report Posted September 23, 2003 In Football, it's The Cardinals, primarily for longevity. They've sucked and done nothing for EIGHTY YEARS. All the other historically hapless teams are only a few years old, 30 something at most. I mean, at least the Bungles made it to the super bowl a couple of times, and just had the misfortune of running into the 49ers when they were one of the best teams of all time (and still played them pretty tough). At least the Saints flicker to life now and then. The Lions and Browns used to have glory days in the 50's at least. And while the Seahawks have pretty much sucked since day 1 with a couple exceptions (looks like this year is going to be an exception, too) they've only been generally hapless for 30 years. It's the Cardinals all the way. They've moved twice, they never draw, they never win, and they lose boring (at least when the Bungles lose, they manage to be creative and amusing about it). And I think that playoff win over Dallas is their ONLY POSTSEASON VICTORY EVER IN 80 YEARS. Or maybe their second, I dunno. Just because I was curious, here's the highlights of the Chicago/St. Louis/Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals: 1925 - NFL Champions, 11-2-1 1947 - NFL Champions, 9-3-0 1948 - Western Conference Champions, 11-1-0 1974 - NFC Eastern Division Champions, 10-4-0 1975 - NFC Eastern Division Champions, 11-3-0 Overall Record: 427-594-38 .403 Yep, that's it.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted September 23, 2003 Report Posted September 23, 2003 They've won a single playoff game since 1925. And that NFL title in 1925 is heavily disputed.
starvenger Posted September 25, 2003 Report Posted September 25, 2003 And that NFL title in 1925 is heavily disputed. That figures.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now