Teams without an arch rival

[chcarlson23]

Pretty much any Professional Minnesota sports team is second or third on another team's "Most Hated" list. That being said, the Gophers have huge rivalries with Wisconsin, and North Dakota (only in Hockey though). But I feel like these have died down a little bit, due to Minnesota's mediocrity lately in most sports, and the fact that the Gophers moved from the WCHA to the B1G, and play the Fighting UNDers less now...  

[RyanMcD29]

I think Rutgers has to be considered given the sheer amount of one-way rivalries they've got going on. I mean, yes, I hate Rutgers a lot, but that's moreso towards Rutgers doing stuff like that than actual rivalry. Let's break this down

-Syracuse? Well, it was sorta a thing in football from 2006-2013, but it's dead now with realignment plus Syracuse had bigger rivalries with West Virginia, BC, and Pitt anyway

-UConn? Sure, it's for NYC area turf, but UConn cares not for football and Syracuse is the archrival there. And even though they had a moment in women's basketball, I doubt UConn considers them anything close to a rival in that either anymore with the B1G and AAC moves

-Penn State? By far the new Maryland-Duke of one-sided rivalries in terms of care by a fanbase.

-Maryland? Still a bit too new and I think the Terps see PSU as more of a rival as well

-St. Johns & Seton Hall? Nope. The former has way more traditional Big East rivalries going on and the latter would probably consider St. John's as more of a rival than Rutgers

-Villanova? lolno

-Princeton? Obviously a no because of the Ivy's football move to FCS plus all those Ivy rivalries, but that doesn't stop Rutgers fans from going to their campus 20 miles away and spraypainting F*** PENN STAT on their statues. Have I mentioned the one-sided Penn State rivalry?

 

So, umm, give me Rutgers.

[Sport]

11 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

I'm a casual Blue Jackets fan (can't stand the frustration of following a constantly losing team) but I have friends who are diehards. They don't seem to have any ill will against the Penguins. They hate the Blackhawks and the Red Wings. This is odd because they hate everything else Pittsburgh.

 

I doubt, however, that Blackhawks or Red Wings fans care much about CBJ.

 

Your sample size is weird because every CBJ fan I know has a burning hatred of the Penguins and it's only gotten worse since joining the same division. I'd say the closest thing we have to a rivalry right now is Pittsburgh, but it's definitely of the Hammer-Nail variety. The only grief we've ever caused the Penguins was slightly inconveniencing them on their way to the second round two years ago.

 

11 hours ago, 2001mark said:

Yeah, I could see the Red Wings, I just figured how much hatred Cleveland & Pittsburgh fans have for one another primarily through football.  

I think if the Jackets became more of an Ohio thing than a city thing, the Red Wings' Michigan ties could play.  I don't know much about it.  The Red Wings have their plates full with Toronto, Chicago, Montreal, & as NBC has taught me, every f'n American team.

 

The Blue Jackets changed their AHL affiliate to Cleveland this season and the Monsters reached the Calder Cup finals and it's gone a long way to bringing more Cleveland fans into contact with the Jackets. We're on our way to becoming more of a regional fanbase than we are now. 

Blue Jackets fans are rivals with a bunch of teams, but nobody thinks of us as a rival because we've never done anything to cause any stress for anyone else. It's the opposite actually. In the old central division the order of hate went like this Detroit, Chicago, Nashville, St. Louis, but none of those fanbases came close to reciprocating. There was a thing going with the Rangers for a little bit with so many players going back and forth, Rick Nash, Brandon Dubinsky, Nash punching Bobrovsky in the face during his first game back in Columbus after leaving, but that feels like it's softened as the Rangers have started clobbering us. 

 

On the ice the Flyers and Blue Jackets really seem to hate each other, but nobody would call that a rivalry yet. I can't wrap my head around being in the same division as the Devils and Hurricanes so not them either. Capitals and Islanders - big nope.

 

So long story short we don't have a rivalry yet. We need to make the playoffs more often than once every 7 years for one to build organically. 

[MCM0313]

49 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

Your sample size is weird because every CBJ fan I know has a burning hatred of the Penguins and it's only gotten worse since joining the same division. I'd say the closest thing we have to a rivalry right now is Pittsburgh, but it's definitely of the Hammer-Nail variety. The only grief we've ever caused the Penguins was slightly inconveniencing them on their way to the second round two years ago.

 

 

The Blue Jackets changed their AHL affiliate to Cleveland this season and the Monsters reached the Calder Cup finals and it's gone a long way to bringing more Cleveland fans into contact with the Jackets. We're on our way to becoming more of a regional fanbase than we are now. 

Blue Jackets fans are rivals with a bunch of teams, but nobody thinks of us as a rival because we've never done anything to cause any stress for anyone else. It's the opposite actually. In the old central division the order of hate went like this Detroit, Chicago, Nashville, St. Louis, but none of those fanbases came close to reciprocating. There was a thing going with the Rangers for a little bit with so many players going back and forth, Rick Nash, Brandon Dubinsky, Nash punching Bobrovsky in the face during his first game back in Columbus after leaving, but that feels like it's softened as the Rangers have started clobbering us. 

 

On the ice the Flyers and Blue Jackets really seem to hate each other, but nobody would call that a rivalry yet. I can't wrap my head around being in the same division as the Devils and Hurricanes so not them either. Capitals and Islanders - big nope.

 

So long story short we don't have a rivalry yet. We need to make the playoffs more often than once every 7 years for one to build organically. 

No kidding. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised we haven't been relocated yet.

[MJWalker45]

12 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

I'm a casual Blue Jackets fan (can't stand the frustration of following a constantly losing team) but I have friends who are diehards. They don't seem to have any ill will against the Penguins. They hate the Blackhawks and the Red Wings. This is odd because they hate everything else Pittsburgh.

 

I doubt, however, that Blackhawks or Red Wings fans care much about CBJ.

IT's from being in the Western Conference from their beginnings and seeing those teams more.

 

3 hours ago, leopard88 said:

As for other teams, I think there a lot of examples of teams who have natural rivals, but who are unlikely to be more than No. 2 for other teams.

 

Examples that I can think of --

 

Cleveland Browns -- I suspect they consider the Steelers their archrival.  However, unless I'm wrong, the Steelers consider the Ravens their archrival.

Tampa Bay Rays -- I'm not sure who they would consider their biggest rival.  Whoever it may be, I'm fairly certain the feeling isn't mutual.

Michigan State -- If Ohio State is Michigan's archrival (which I think is the answer most Michigan fans would give), Sparty is left standing at No. 2.

The Browns and Steelers are a traditional rivalry but both fan bases loathe Baltimore. The Ravens  vs Steelers rivalry is based on competing for the division. In addition, the Rooney's were really the only ownership team to verbally call out Modell when he took the original Browns away. The Browns still consider the Steelers theirprimary rivalry, but the Ravens rivalry is more bitter than the Steelers which has been more cordial since the Browns returned in 1999.

[rams80]

2 hours ago, RyanMcD29 said:

I think Rutgers has to be considered given the sheer amount of one-way rivalries they've got going on. I mean, yes, I hate Rutgers a lot, but that's moreso towards Rutgers doing stuff like that than actual rivalry. Let's break this down

-Syracuse? Well, it was sorta a thing in football from 2006-2013, but it's dead now with realignment plus Syracuse had bigger rivalries with West Virginia, BC, and Pitt anyway

-UConn? Sure, it's for NYC area turf, but UConn cares not for football and Syracuse is the archrival there. And even though they had a moment in women's basketball, I doubt UConn considers them anything close to a rival in that either anymore with the B1G and AAC moves

-Penn State? By far the new Maryland-Duke of one-sided rivalries in terms of care by a fanbase.

-Maryland? Still a bit too new and I think the Terps see PSU as more of a rival as well

-St. Johns & Seton Hall? Nope. The former has way more traditional Big East rivalries going on and the latter would probably consider St. John's as more of a rival than Rutgers

-Villanova? lolno

-Princeton? Obviously a no because of the Ivy's football move to FCS plus all those Ivy rivalries, but that doesn't stop Rutgers fans from going to their campus 20 miles away and spraypainting F*** PENN STAT on their statues. Have I mentioned the one-sided Penn State rivalry?

 

So, umm, give me Rutgers.

 

I should add that the entire B1G does hate Rutgers and would be glad to see them gone tomorrow, but more because of their presence and what it symbolizes rather than because of anything they do.  (Costing everyone at least a seed line in the most recent NCAA tournament just by existing sure didn't help though).

[OnWis97]

49 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

IT's from being in the Western Conference from their beginnings and seeing those teams more.

 

The Browns and Steelers are a traditional rivalry but both fan bases loathe Baltimore. The Ravens  vs Steelers rivalry is based on competing for the division. In addition, the Rooney's were really the only ownership team to verbally call out Modell when he took the original Browns away. The Browns still consider the Steelers theirprimary rivalry, but the Ravens rivalry is more bitter than the Steelers which has been more cordial since the Browns returned in 1999.

This kinda shows the Ravens' ability to be relevant/competitive for pretty much their entire existence after many years of struggling in Cleveland.  While they are not "officially" connected to the long-running first edition of the Browns, we know what happened.  So it's kind of remarkable that the team that for all practical purposes had been the struggling Browns is now the closest thing the Steelers have to a thorn in their side.  And I cannot blame Cleveland for having a "sour grapes" attitude that the Ravens are are so damn good after moving away from Cleveland (for all intents and purposes; even though it never happened).

 

There's some parallel in Minnesota.  While I feel that the Stars have drifted somewhat into being just another team, I am sure there are plenty of fans thinking "The North Stars were consistently mediocre.  Now we have the big-payroll-mediocre Wild.  Meanwhile the old franchise became relevant after moving, won a cup and while not always great, certainly could win another cup in the next 50 years, which the Wild will not."

[Kramerica Industries]

Couldn't really tell you any teams that consider any of the pro teams in Tampa to be a #1 rival; the Storm and the Predators in the AFL is probably the closest you're going to find, but that's Arena football and that sport died on a vine a few years ago now (and the Storm are utterly terrible these days as well, evidently).

 

Two of the Miami teams play in different leagues/conferences than their Tampa counterpart does; I suppose there is the potential for the 'Cats and the Lightning to eventually get fierce with each other given that both teams are, finally, good at the same time. Only twice since Florida joined the league have the Panthers and Bolts been in the playoffs in the same season; 1995-'96, and this past season. If they meet in a playoff series, maybe the origins of a true rivalry can start then. I can't speak from the Florida perspective on this, of course, but as a Tampa fan, I can't ever remember thinking of the Panthers as being a true "rival" if only because Florida had been terrible for so many years and never were a threat to anything the Lightning were trying to accomplish. It was either the Flyers or Bruins that drew most of my ire, but Lol at the idea of either of those teams or their fans thinking of the Lightning as being a chief rival; it's cute but stupid. 

 

Who would it be for the Bucs? In the division they play in now, they're the black cat* to three former NFC West teams that thrown into a new division; there's no history with any of those teams prior to 2002. I'm old enough to remember the NFC Central and those rivalries the Bucs had, but I hardly think the Bucs register as the #1 rival to the Packers, Vikings, Bears, or Lions. Come to think of it, all three of those teams regard the Pack as their #1 rival, I'm sure. At best, for several years in the late '90s and early '00s, the Bucs were the #2 on the Packers list behind the Vikings; the Bears being terrible during this stretch is the only way that might be possible. Batte of the Bays was a pretty heated rivalry back then, and I miss the hell out of it because I don't feel any rivalry connections anymore to any of those teams, which is unfortunate.

 

*I mean, as a metaphor. I guess the Panthers are the actual "black cats".

[MCM0313]

3 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

This kinda shows the Ravens' ability to be relevant/competitive for pretty much their entire existence after many years of struggling in Cleveland.  While they are not "officially" connected to the long-running first edition of the Browns, we know what happened.  So it's kind of remarkable that the team that for all practical purposes had been the struggling Browns is now the closest thing the Steelers have to a thorn in their side.  And I cannot blame Cleveland for having a "sour grapes" attitude that the Ravens are are so damn good after moving away from Cleveland (for all intents and purposes; even though it never happened).

I was never a Browns fan at all, but I can't stand the Ravens because a part of me still considers them illegitimate.

[leopard88]

3 minutes ago, MCM0313 said:

I was never a Browns fan at all, but I can't stand the Ravens because a part of me still considers them illegitimate.

 

I understand this.  That said, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that about the Titans other than old Oilers fans (unless I'm missing something).  I wonder why that is (legitimately . . . not trying to speak rhetorically/sarcastically).

[BeerGuyJordan]

The Predators don't really have anything. We hate the 'Hawks, but that's pretty true of any other fanbase in Central, maybe even the whole WC, plus, I don't know how much it registers on those fans' scales.

 

It felt like there was one building pretty well with Detroit, with the shared conference and number of times we played each other in the playoffs. It even started to feel like it was really registering with their fanbase (still behind Chicago and Toronto, though). That's really kind of petered out since realignment, though.

 

St. Louis' regional proximity has potential, but their age and the lack of post-season meetings has never caused one to develop, for Nashville.

 

I think Vegas has the potential to fill that void for the Coyotes. The couple of Columbus fans I know hate Detroit, one said it's because they've always had them in the same division, but that it doesn't really blip the radar for most Wings fans.

[Sykotyk]

44 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

 

I understand this.  That said, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that about the Titans other than old Oilers fans (unless I'm missing something).  I wonder why that is (legitimately . . . not trying to speak rhetorically/sarcastically).

I'm a Browns fan. I think the time this was taking places was during the stadium boom in the NFL and a lot of teams moving. Houston to Tennessee. Cleveland to Baltimore. Rams to St. Louis. Raiders back to Oakland. Two expansion teams (one team that still seems to be a mistake in retrospect and constant candidate to relocate themselves).

 

Of those teams, Cleveland was the successful one. Some people get confused by the Browns needing television channels to usually purchase the unsold tickets so the game could be aired locally forget that the Browns had one of the largest stadiums in the league at 84,000. Of which, roughly 12,000 or so were obstructed or partially obstructed. Which were always hard to sell unless the game was big (Such as Steelers, Bengals or a marque matchup based on record).

 

Rams and Raiders both left for questionable, though understandable, reasons. Neither team was native to Los Angeles. Raiders were in trouble in the gargantuan Coliseum. Rams were lured by the new stadium in St. Louis. And Houston just had no push to build a new stadium for the antiquated and run-down Astrodome at the time.

 

The Browns, though, to the public, were a success and Modell's money troubles seemed to be entirely self-inflicted. Including his decision NOT to be part of the Gateway Sports Complex since he had control of Municipal Stadium for the princely sum of $1 and got to charge rent to the Indians.

 

But, I think the distasteful way the Browns went about moving got fans angered around the league. The building boom was starting. And though teams threatened, and did, move quite a bit at the time for the allure of a new stadium elsewhere in effort to get new stadiums; like the mafia, offering protection to local businesses only works when occasionally one of those business faces the torch.

 

And in the NFL's case, the Browns were the business that really struck fear into all the other markets to get their stadiums built or lose the team. Even if they were successful. Hell, it was not long after the Browns moved that Pittsburgh started working on plans to keep the Steelers in a new stadium for fear their small market could be next.

[MCM0313]

1 hour ago, leopard88 said:

 

I understand this.  That said, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that about the Titans other than old Oilers fans (unless I'm missing something).  I wonder why that is (legitimately . . . not trying to speak rhetorically/sarcastically).

Simple: The Browns had a long, storied history. The Oilers won, what, one AFL title? And it was back when the AFL was largely considered a minor league. Plus, the Titans kept a similar color scheme.

 

The Browns, meanwhile, won a bunch of AAFC titles, then a bunch of NFL titles. The Oilers had Earl Campbell and Warren Moon. The Browns had Lou Groza, Otto Graham, Marion Motley, Jim Brown, Paul Warfield, and of course the legendary founder and coach in Paul Brown. Plus the Browns have a legendarily passionate fan base; the Oilers, by contrast, pretty much only drew crowds when they were good.

 

And, of course, the Ravens adopted a brand-new identity and color scheme, while the Titans were seen as a continuation of the Oilers franchise.

[MJWalker45]

46 minutes ago, MCM0313 said:

Simple: The Browns had a long, storied history. The Oilers won, what, one AFL title? And it was back when the AFL was largely considered a minor league. Plus, the Titans kept a similar color scheme.

 

The Browns, meanwhile, won a bunch of AAFC titles, then a bunch of NFL titles. The Oilers had Earl Campbell and Warren Moon. The Browns had Lou Groza, Otto Graham, Marion Motley, Jim Brown, Paul Warfield, and of course the legendary founder and coach in Paul Brown. Plus the Browns have a legendarily passionate fan base; the Oilers, by contrast, pretty much only drew crowds when they were good.

 

And, of course, the Ravens adopted a brand-new identity and color scheme, while the Titans were seen as a continuation of the Oilers franchise.

The fact that Bud Adams controlled the Oilers name from cradle to grave is a good point too. He managed to burn a ton of bridges which led to a lame duck season in Houston, a lame duck season in Memphis and a total rebrand to make the team more appealing to hometown fans. It's a sad statement that Houston still has the Astrodome standing some 20 years after the move, while a brand new stadium sits on the other side of the parking lot. It's also strange that the league "retired" the Oilers name rather than giving it back to the city as it did with Cleveland. Still not as strange as when Seattle gave up the Sonics. They kept the team name and colors, but the records went to Oklahoma City.

[OnWis97]

4 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

The fact that Bud Adams controlled the Oilers name from cradle to grave is a good point too. He managed to burn a ton of bridges which led to a lame duck season in Houston, a lame duck season in Memphis and a total rebrand to make the team more appealing to hometown fans. It's a sad statement that Houston still has the Astrodome standing some 20 years after the move, while a brand new stadium sits on the other side of the parking lot. It's also strange that the league "retired" the Oilers name rather than giving it back to the city as it did with Cleveland. Still not as strange as when Seattle gave up the Sonics. They kept the team name and colors, but the records went to Oklahoma City.

I was thinking the Oilers moved before the Browns, but it turns out it was one year after.  Wow.

 

Sometimes people cynically say that the difference between the Browns and other moves is "A blue-collar city lost it's football team."  Well, I kinda think that's what happened.  The idea of a team with a lot of history, no helmet logo, and a blue-collar fanbase leaving a rust-belt city sparked some kind of extra sympathy that is not there for most relocations.  One should feel just as bad for the hard-core Oilers fan as for the hard-core Browns fan, but there was some kind of posthumous mystique to the relationship the Browns had with it's lunch-pail-carrying fanbase.  It's pretty intangible, but there was just more outrage to that move than to just about any other.

 

Nevertheless, I was surprised to see that the Oilers move was later because I'd have figured a Cleveland Deal would have taken place.  A part of it could be that the Oilers were not as significant as the Browns.  But I think the storied relationship between the team and the fans was key.

 

Regarding the Sonics, I think the NBA did better than the NFL.  Providing the colors/name to a new team, but not the history, maintains the true history better (Think Winnipeg Jets).  But the NBA loses all credibility with the Charlotte mess.  

 

[MJWalker45]

13 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

 

Regarding the Sonics, I think the NBA did better than the NFL.  Providing the colors/name to a new team, but not the history, maintains the true history better (Think Winnipeg Jets).  But the NBA loses all credibility with the Charlotte mess.  

 

I agree. With Charlotte, why go back and rename them fora team that's still playing? I wonder if New Orleans volunteered to change names because they were given financial incentives as well. Even if you decide to change from Bobcats a completely new name would have been a bettter option since it's confusing as hell to everyone else as to which team was the original Charlotte. It's almost like the Washington Senators which are now two different teams (Texas/Minnesota) and almost became a third Washington Senators team, though they retained a few of the logos and looks from the previous two teams.

[rams80]

The financial incentives for New Orleans surrendering the Hornets name was "do it or you won't be allowed to buy the team."

[OnWis97]

6 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

I agree. With Charlotte, why go back and rename them fora team that's still playing? I wonder if New Orleans volunteered to change names because they were given financial incentives as well. Even if you decide to change from Bobcats a completely new name would have been a bettter option since it's confusing as hell to everyone else as to which team was the original Charlotte. It's almost like the Washington Senators which are now two different teams (Texas/Minnesota) and almost became a third Washington Senators team, though they retained a few of the logos and looks from the previous two teams.

From the moment the NO Hornets said they were going to change their name, I figured that the Charlotte team was not just getting lucky.  The reason had to be so Charlotte could rename itself the Hornets.  I remember bellyaching about the history mess and people telling me I was crazy; no way the NBA was going to do the history-change game that retroactively.

[MJWalker45]

2 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

This kinda shows the Ravens' ability to be relevant/competitive for pretty much their entire existence after many years of struggling in Cleveland.  While they are not "officially" connected to the long-running first edition of the Browns, we know what happened.  So it's kind of remarkable that the team that for all practical purposes had been the struggling Browns is now the closest thing the Steelers have to a thorn in their side.  And I cannot blame Cleveland for having a "sour grapes" attitude that the Ravens are are so damn good after moving away from Cleveland (for all intents and purposes; even though it never happened).

Cleveland in 1995 was a legitimate playoff contender until the announcement that they were moving. Over the previous 8 years tehy were always in contention for the playoffs and conference titles. That's why the loss was of the team hurt so much. I feel if Moddell had come out in the spring of 1995 and said, "I'm going broke and I need help now!", Cleveland would have done everything to make sure he was taken care of. Instead, he cut off talks and went looking for a new deal that helped get him out of debt immediately. Before seeing the Believeland documentary I wasn't aware of how much property he owned or supported in Cleveland. Most of which was devalued by Gateway since it was closer to Municipal Stadium and not Jacobs Field. 

[MJWalker45]

3 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

From the moment the NO Hornets said they were going to change their name, I figured that the Charlotte team was not just getting lucky.  The reason had to be so Charlotte could rename itself the Hornets.  I remember bellyaching about the history mess and people telling me I was crazy; no way the NBA was going to do the history-change game that retroactively.

They said the same thing about ads on jerseys too.