OnWis97

Choking / Cursed Franchises

Recommended Posts

Yeah, examples from elsewhere don't really map to New York and Brooklyn.

 

They could have gone either way on it, there are fair arguments for New York Nets and Brooklyn Nets. I just have Brooklyn fatigue. You can't blame me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

How about the post 1964 original Browns? Most people think the bulk of the original Browns misery was born in the 80's, but it actually started much earlier. This team had a shot at playing in five of the first seven Super Bowls. 

 

Lost to the Cowboys in the divisional round of the '67 playoffs. 

Lost the '68 Conference Championship game to the Colts and missed a shot at going to Super Bowl III. 

*Lost the '69 Conference Championship game to the Vikings and missed a shot at going to Super Bowl IV.

Lost to the Colts in the divisional round of the '71 playoffs. 

Lost to the Dolphins in the divisional round of the '72 playoffs.

 

Then we move on to the 80's...

 

Lost to the Raiders in divisional round of the '80 playoffs. The infamous "Red Right 88" game. 

Lost to the Raiders again in the '82 strike season playoffs. (This one wasn't a big deal. The Browns were 4-5 going into the playoffs and they weren't very good.)

Lost to the Dolphins in the divisional round of the '85 playoffs - blowing a 21-3 lead in the process.

Lost to the Broncos in the '86 AFC Championship Game - some of you may know this one as "The Drive." 

Lost to the Broncos in the '87 AFC Championship Game - after storming back from a 21-3 deficit, Earnest Byner fumbles while going in for the TD that could have tied the game - some of you may know this one as "The Fumble.

Lost to the Oilers in the Wildcard Round of the '88 playoffs - despite the fact that the legend known as Don Strock was the starting QB in this game. 

Lost to the Broncos in the '89 AFC Championship Game -some of you may know this one as "the one no one remembers."

 

Finally, there was the improbable '94 team. A young coach by the name of Bill Belichick took a team that has no business being 11-5 to an 11-5 record and a Wildcard round playoff win over the New England Patriots. The following week, the Browns went to Pittsburgh to take on the Steelers. For some reason, the Browns didn't bother to get off the plane and the Steelers won easily. 

 

The players and coaches left Cleveland after the '95 season, but, I guess, the "team" stuck around and was dormant until the 1999 season. In 1999, the team went from being "cursed" or "chokers" to flat out stupid and here we are. 

 

*The 1969 NFL Championship Game was the first of what would end up being many, many times that the Browns crushed my spirit as a fan. I was 8 years old and I was inconsolable after they lost to the Vikings. I should have bailed and headed for Pittsburgh right then and there. 

 

 

 

Fun Fact: The Browns entered the 1990s with the NFL's highest all time winning percentage. They should have so much more to show for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2018 at 9:34 AM, WideRight said:

--17 years of bad, but not bad enough to get top draft picks seasons.  So so many 7-9's.

 

The one year they get a first-round QB in the 2000's, they trade up for J.P. Losman. If they would have kept that pick (a 2005 first-rounder), they could have had A-Rod, and they probably don't have to waste picks in this decade on E.J. Manuel and Josh Allen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2018 at 7:08 PM, the admiral said:

Yeah, examples from elsewhere don't really map to New York and Brooklyn.

 

They could have gone either way on it, there are fair arguments for New York Nets and Brooklyn Nets. I just have Brooklyn fatigue. You can't blame me.

 

I don't want to hear about it while a single Texan or Portlander draws breath.  :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2018 at 1:05 PM, Mac the Knife said:

IThe most needless, perhaps because I'm most closely exposed to it, comes from the "Carolina" Panthers and Hurricanes.  They play on opposite ends of the state, frequently confusing fans as to which plays where; meanwhile no one would be upset if they suddenly became the Charlotte Panthers and Raleigh Hurricanes, because the fan bases are completely different and separated by a 2 1/2 hour drive from one another (it's actually a shorter drive from Raleigh to Richmond than from Raleigh to Charlotte).

 

True, but they're called the Carolina Panthers because they're also marketing to South Carolina. I'd wager that there are more Panther fans in Upstate SC than Raleigh.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would people from Raleigh really feel slighted/not-in-the-loop if the team was called the Charlotte Panthers?

 

I don’t see people from Boulder being up in arms over the Denver Broncos, so I’d imagine it would be perfectly fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kaz said:

Would people from Raleigh really feel slighted/not-in-the-loop if the team was called the Charlotte Panthers?

 

I don’t see people from Boulder being up in arms over the Denver Broncos, so I’d imagine it would be perfectly fine

 

Because Boulder's identity is Colorado's main college town, where Denver is the major urban center and cultural capital. No one on either side disputes this.

 

Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham have more of a Dallas vs. Houston or Miami vs. Tampa dynamic at play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kaz said:

Would people from Raleigh really feel slighted/not-in-the-loop if the team was called the Charlotte Panthers?

 

I don’t see people from Boulder being up in arms over the Denver Broncos, so I’d imagine it would be perfectly fine

 

There’s been a few petitions trying to get the team to become the Colorado Broncos. They are mostly from people in the northern and eastern sides of the state though. The rural areas of Colorado have a real problem being associated with a “loose moral,” big city like Denver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NicDB said:

 

Because Boulder's identity is Colorado's main college town, where Denver is the major urban center and cultural capital. No one on either side disputes this.

 

Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham have more of a Dallas vs. Houston or Miami vs. Tampa dynamic at play.

And Raleigh (moreso the Research Triangle in general) isn't exactly that for North Carolina?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Blaze Domingo said:

True, but they're called the Carolina Panthers because they're also marketing to South Carolina. I'd wager that there are more Panther fans in Upstate SC than Raleigh.

They're the "Carolina Panthers" because they underestimated their initial economic models, surmising that Raleigh and Greensboro residents would be willing to go to Charlotte to watch NFL football.  They were, in short order, proven wrong.

 

2 hours ago, Kaz said:

Would people from Raleigh really feel slighted/not-in-the-loop if the team was called the Charlotte Panthers?

I actually wish they would become the "Charlotte Panthers."  And the hockey team should be the "Raleigh Hurricanes."  I could understand it if either were operating in a city that would make their team somewhat unmarketable (e.g., if the Panthers played not in Charlotte but rather in Gastonia or High Shoals, or if the Hurricanes played in Lizard Lick or Zebulon).

 

2 hours ago, NicDB said:

Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham have more of a Dallas vs. Houston or Miami vs. Tampa dynamic at play.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, just for your edification.  "Raleigh-Durham" refers to one place here, and one place only:  the Raleigh-Durham International Airport.  If you are in Raleigh and use "Raleigh-Durham," you're going to hear about it.  If you are in Durham and use "Raleigh-Durham," you're going to have to run away from anyone who heard you.  There's "Raleigh," and there's "Durham."  "Raleigh-Durham" is an airport.

 

Charlotte and Raleigh are Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.  Cleveland and Cincinnati.  Los Angeles and Oakland.  They are each very distinctive cities and markets, and never, ever should they be confused.  

 

Durham meanwhile, is to Raleigh what Erie is to Buffalo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mac the Knife said:

Durham meanwhile, is to Raleigh what Erie is to Buffalo. 

The nearest place to get Chick-fil-A?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cosmic said:

The nearest place to get Chick-fil-A?

 

I can't say.  I don't buy Chick-fil-A from those racist, homophobic bastards anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Kaz said:

And Raleigh (moreso the Research Triangle in general) isn't exactly that for North Carolina?


It is, but I always got the impression that the Triangle also saw itself as the Carolinas' main metro area as well.  Boulder makes no such claims, as far as I know, and sees Denver as "the big city."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mac the Knife said:

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, just for your edification.  "Raleigh-Durham" refers to one place here, and one place only:  the Raleigh-Durham International Airport.  If you are in Raleigh and use "Raleigh-Durham," you're going to hear about it.  If you are in Durham and use "Raleigh-Durham," you're going to have to run away from anyone who heard you.  There's "Raleigh," and there's "Durham."  "Raleigh-Durham" is an airport.


Raleigh-Durham (and occasionally Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill) is also used in the broadcasting industry to refer to the region's media market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NicDB said:

Because Boulder's identity is Colorado's main college town, where Denver is the major urban center and cultural capital. No one on either side disputes this.

 

Will confirm Denver is NOT a Buffs town.

 

While we're at it, let me rank Denver fandom:

Broncos

Broncos preseason

Broncos offseason

What Elway and Von are doing off the field

.

.

.

Rockies

.

Nuggets

Avalanche

.

.

College athletics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2018 at 3:34 AM, WideRight said:

As a Bills fan since 1979 I am going to have to agree with this.  Here is the litanny of woe.

 

--Won AFL championships but only in years prior to the Superbowl.  Had the merger happened 1 year earlier Bills would have been in Super Bowl I.

 

They also came within one game of the Super Bowl I the following season, losing to Kansas City in the AFL Championship game.

 

Quote

--Could not even be featured in a mediocre Kevin Costner movie about the draft.  It was meant to be the Bills, but got switched to the Browns in pre-production.

 

Who needs Kevin Costner when we have the 2002 made-for-TV movie "Second String" starring Jon Voight as the fictional head coach of the Buffalo Bills and cameos from Doug Flutie and Chris Berman!

 

248e3a5e-2669-4392-abf0-a834e59df088_1.7

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2018 at 1:25 PM, tp49 said:

I'd nominate the Vancouver Canucks.

 

I'll second that.  Home-ice advantage, a 2-0 series lead in the Stanley Cup Final and what happens.  An ill advised late-hit by that idiot Aaron Rome serving as a catalyst for one of, if not the, most embarrassing blowouts in Finals history.  After another abysmal performance in Boston they find their bearings and play what might have been their most complete game of the run.  All they need now is one more win to end 40 years of frustration but does the team from game 5 show up?  No.  Instead Luongo runs his mouth and the team folds like a cheap suit losing 4-0 at home to highlight 40 years of failure.  The team raises everyone's hopes only to dash them at the last possible moment in a heinous gut-punch.  And then, as if that wasn't bad enough, a bunch of drunken mouth-breathers embarrass the city and franchise on a national scale with a senseless riot.  I'm wracking my brain to think of how it could have ended worse.  From sheer euphoria after game 2 to below rock-bottom  😡

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Morgo said:

I'm wracking my brain to think of how it could have ended worse.😡

Sweeping the first three rounds only to get swept in the Final.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, NicDB said:


Raleigh-Durham (and occasionally Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill) is also used in the broadcasting industry to refer to the region's media market.

Tell you what.  Next time you're in Raleigh or Durham, and outside the confines of the airport, try using "Raleigh-Durham" a few times.  See how people react to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mac the Knife said:

Tell you what.  Next time you're in Raleigh or Durham, and outside the confines of the airport, try using "Raleigh-Durham" a few times.  See how people react to it.


You're missing the point.  I'm not denying the local colloquial nuances at play in the triangle region, which I know is what the people who live there prefer.

I'm simply saying that, right or wrong, the term "Raleigh-Durham" has its share of cache outside of the Carolinas, and gave a couple examples of why.  And given that this forum has a lot more people from outside of the region than in, I thought it would be less confusing for all if I identified the region by its two main cities than used a much more localized term.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now