Jump to content

Bengals worst franchise in sports?


Kazkal

Recommended Posts

I'll give you the Browns being ranked that high is a bit off considering all franchises for all sports.

That being said, I think regardless of where they rank ANY team, the Bengals would still finish dead last.

Sad but true.

As much as I am not happy with this past year, any team that has won 2 division titles in the last 6 years, should not be last. Also, I don't like other people/media bashing on the Bengals. Only we can bash on them. It's like only you can make fun of your little brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple years ago I took a minute to recognize the fact that the Lions took the title from the Bengals as having the worst record over a decade for any sports franchise. I really thought that was a title we would have held onto for quite some time. Anyway, they suck as well. Their level of suck just doesn't seem to compare. I mean is there any other sports franchise that hasn't won a playoff game in over 20 years ??

We don't just suck, we embrace the suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple years ago I took a minute to recognize the fact that the Lions took the title from the Bengals as having the worst record over a decade for any sports franchise. I really thought that was a title we would have held onto for quite some time. Anyway, they suck as well. Their level of suck just doesn't seem to compare. I mean is there any other sports franchise that hasn't won a playoff game in over 20 years ??

We don't just suck, we embrace the suck.

I don't know. The LA Clippers have only had 3 winning seasons in their history (34 years). That's pretty damn bad.

I'm not sure what the basis for the rankings are... whether it is history (The Bengals were quite good in the 80's, respectable in the 70's), or if it's the current state (Cincy has won their division twice in 6 years), it doesn't quite add up.

When people think about the Bengals, they think 90's... and even though that's a well earned reputation that appears to revisit even the current team - they are not the worst franchise in all of sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the LA Clippers are the one team that immediately came to mind when I first saw this.

I still haven't bothered to read the article and see who was ranked where, but they suck pretty bad as well.

When most people think of the Bengals, they just can't get by the 90's and the whole criminal element that they got such a bad wrap for.

Couple that with most thinking Mike Brown is the worst owner in all of sports and it's not hard to see why they were ranked where they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the Cleveland Cavs?

They were 17-65... won the lottery and drafted lebron. They did a horrible job of building a team around him, because as soon as he left, they were 19-63 and won the lottery again.

Other than being lucky enough to win the lottery when Lebron was available... what have they done? Management has been running that team into the ground for 15 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, here we go:

In all, 122 teams from the NFL, NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball were ranked in order, based on a weighted average of scores in eight different categories ranging from the quantitative to the emotionally subjective: “bang for the buck” (24.3%), players (16.6%), fan relations (16.5%), affordability (14.1%), stadium experience (9.1%), ownership (9.0%), title track (6.7%), and coaching (3.9%).

Take that for what it's worth, but the Packers are followed by the New Orleans Saints at #3. That's right, the same Saints team that had never won or even been to a Super Bowl until a couple seasons ago. I think they get the love for the recent Super Bowl win and all the issues that surrounded the team with hurricane Katrina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, here we go:

In all, 122 teams from the NFL, NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball were ranked in order, based on a weighted average of scores in eight different categories ranging from the quantitative to the emotionally subjective: “bang for the buck” (24.3%), players (16.6%), fan relations (16.5%), affordability (14.1%), stadium experience (9.1%), ownership (9.0%), title track (6.7%), and coaching (3.9%).

Take that for what it's worth, but the Packers are followed by the New Orleans Saints at #3. That's right, the same Saints team that had never won or even been to a Super Bowl until a couple seasons ago. I think they get the love for the recent Super Bowl win and all the issues that surrounded the team with hurricane Katrina.

Yeah... whatever.

These lists are rarely worth the paper they are printed on... so it doesn't really matter.

The fact is, I'd much rather be a Bengal fan, than a Kansas City Royals fan. At the beginning of the season, I usually have hope. There are plenty of teams out there... not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm really going to have to go see what they were factoring into this.

If fan loyalty is a part of it, the Pirates (one of the worst teams the past 20 years) always has a HUGE following of fans that support them.

It's actually kind of wierd when you look at it.

Have to disagree there. In 1990 when the Reds played the Pirates in the NLCS. The Pirates had the best record in the NL. They didn't sell out their home playoff games against the Reds. This is when they were good. They have anything but a huge following.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I'm not surprised. Looking at the criteria is definitely a head scratcher though.

In all, 122 teams from the NFL, NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball were ranked in order, based on a weighted average of scores in eight different categories ranging from the quantitative to the emotionally subjective:

(1) “bang for the buck” (24.3%)- OKAY I KINDA GET THIS...I THINK

(2) players (16.6%) - NOT SURE WHAT THIS MEANS, PLAYER POLLS ABOUT THEIR TEAM? FAN POLLS ABOUT PLAYERS? SOME VAGUE NOTION OF "KEEPING CORE PLAYERS"??

(3) fan relations (16.5%) - HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT THAN TICKET PRICE? FREE CHALUPAS?

(4) affordability (14.1%) - OKAY, TICKET PRICE, FAIR ENOUGH

(5) stadium experience (9.1%) - WOULDN'T FANS RATE THIS IN #3 ABOVE?

(6) ownership (9.0%) - YUP, EVEN BENGALS FANS WOULD RATE THIS LOWEST

(7) title track (6.7%) - WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? TITLES WON?

(8) coaching (3.9%) - WHAT DOES THIS ONE MEAN? WHETHER YOU LIKE THE COACH OR NOT?

Then there's this...

“Value, both economic and emotional, has always figured prominently in our rankings, but this year we heard louder than ever that a team’s commitment to its fans matters more than anything else, more than even new stadiums and championship rings.”

Ummm, no. A team's commitment to its fans does not matter more than championship rings. This is a wholly subjective measure. Running an internet poll asking fans if they like their owner or coach is likely to change fairly dramatically from one year to the next (or one week to the next in the NFL). And - tossing any homerism aside - do the Redskins deserve to be the second worst franchise in the big 4 sports? I don't think so. But there they are at 121. Other than many people hating Snyder, is there any reason the Redskins would be worse than the clippers, browns, panthers, raptors, etc. Essentially, my guess is that ticket prices and the SES of the market of the team swallow up almost all of the fan opinion criteria. Stupid article pretending to be "scientific."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This list is just a what's happened lately list. Do you think we'd be last if we'd won 10 games last season? Hell, the Saints were in complete disarray just a few years ago with fans ready to physically attack the owner because they thought he was moving the team (in my opinion he probably was going to move them, then Katrina, through a biazaare set of circumstances, made him stay).

What are the Browns living off of? Those NFL championships from the '50s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm really going to have to go see what they were factoring into this.

If fan loyalty is a part of it, the Pirates (one of the worst teams the past 20 years) always has a HUGE following of fans that support them.

It's actually kind of wierd when you look at it.

Have to disagree there. In 1990 when the Reds played the Pirates in the NLCS. The Pirates had the best record in the NL. They didn't sell out their home playoff games against the Reds. This is when they were good. They have anything but a huge following.

I have to admit to not really knowing where I was going with that post in retrospect.

I think I was trying to get at them being one of the most profitable teams over the past few seasons despite being one of the worst and brain farted into the above post. The profit doesn't come from fan support but rather issues with revenue sharing. Anyway, I digress...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has to be the Clips. Same putridity over the long haul and an even more pinny-pinching owner. Add to it the fact that the owner is widely reputed to be a racist a**hole, and the fact that they're a distant #2 in their own town. Generally, the Clips don't get ridiculed in LA because it's not even worth the effort.

I didn't even see them on the list, which really calls the whole thing into question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...