Teams without an arch rival

[OnWis97]

1 hour ago, MJWalker45 said:

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. 

Ha.  As I was writing it I figured someone would shoot holes through my suggestion that the pre-Baltimore Browns sucked (I was thinking of the 1980s AFC Title teams).  Nevertheless, the Browns never played in a Super Bowl and the Ravens have now one two...so my point stands; it's a tough pill to swallow for Cleveland fans.

[The_Admiral]

I said it in another thread the other day, but the NFL should have stared down Bud Adams and kept the Oilers in Houston for the sake of preventing four relocations in three years, and three of those from major metropolitan areas. Even if that would have meant playing at Rice in the interim, it would have been better than the Liberty Bowl and Vanderbilt.

[4_tattoos]

9 hours ago, leopard88 said:

Johns Hopkins is the archrival for lacrosse . . . and the feeling is mutual.  However, I think you're right about there not being an overall archrival and/or one in other sports

 

Totally forgot about Maryland's lacrosse rivalry with Hopkins

[4_tattoos]

11 hours ago, Crabcake47 said:

The Orioles. We certainly don't like any of our Al East rivals, but we don't really have an "arch-rival". 

 

Although tbf, here in Baltimore we hate the Yankees, although I'm pretty sure that it's not even a big deal up there. 

Now that I think about it. In a weird way the Nationals biggest rival may actually be the Orioles. Not sure how the O's view the Nats though.

[Sport]

For as long as they've been around I'd say the Reds don't really have a true arch-rival. When they were most recently competitive they had a brief fling with the Cardinals, but the Cards rivals have always been the Cubs, plus the Cards answered the Reds' division titles with an absurdly lucky World Series, an absurdly lucky NLCS appearance, and then another absurdly lucky trip to the World Series again. Their fans don't care about the Reds.

 

In the old NL West it was the Dodgers, but geographically it never made any sense and the distance kept the fans from really clashing, the Dodgers have the Giants, and the rivalry with the Dodgers been dead for 25 years now. 

 

I guess the Pirates games have gotten pretty bitter in the last few years, and there was a wildcard matchup, and some old NLCS matchups, and they lead the majors in hit batsmen every year. If the Reds turn it around the Pirates-Reds could develop into a nasty rivalry, but it's not there anymore. 

[4_tattoos]

I want to say the NY Knicks don't have an arch rival. I know they had Jordan's Bulls for a while & Mourning's Heat. Historically I just don't feel the Knicks are tied to another franchise the way other NY teams are (ie Giants/Eagles, Yankees/Red Sox, Jets/Patriots, Mets/Phillies). The Boston Celtics are historically tied to the Lakers, while the Sixers.... Hmmm. Don't know about the Sixers either.

[The_Admiral]

The NBA is too sophisticated for provincial rivalries -- just ask fans, they'll tell you.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Pretty much, though the Lakers/Celtics redux of the late 2000s was pretty fun.

 

But NBA rivalries tend to be temporary and based on players rather than fanbases. It's not that much different than other sports; Seahawks/49ers was awesome but now it sucks. Pats/Ravens, Pats/Colts and Pats/Broncos have all been rivalries that were good but are now over.

[Dynasty]

I'll speak for Miami and say that no one cares for the teams down there. I'm sure the Dolphins have had mutual disdain towards their division rivals (mainly the Patriots), but they haven't been really good enough in the past decade to generate sheer hatred from the others. No one views the Marlins as a true rival because despite their two WS titles, they have done absolutely NOTHING in their existance. The Heat don't have any rivals in the Southeast division, mainly because they've absolutely dominated it throughout the years. I'd say they have had (at the very least) a temporary rivalry with Boston when LeBron was in Miami, but that's died off. No one hates the Panthers and hell, do they even hate anyone?

[The_Admiral]

 

56 minutes ago, the admiral said:

The NBA is too sophisticated for provincial rivalries -- just ask fans, they'll tell you.

 

46 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

Pretty much, though the Lakers/Celtics redux of the late 2000s was pretty fun.

 

But NBA rivalries tend to be temporary and based on players rather than fanbases. It's not that much different than other sports; Seahawks/49ers was awesome but now it sucks. Pats/Ravens, Pats/Colts and Pats/Broncos have all been rivalries that were good but are now over.

 

Of course other leagues have rivalries that come and go, but no group looks down its nose at the mere concept of rivalries the way the NBA cognoscenti does. This idea that there's anything uniquely genteel or erudite about watching basketball has never been something I could get behind. I like the NBA, but come on, it ain't polo.

[2001mark]

43 minutes ago, Dolphins Dynasty said:

I'll speak for Miami and say that no one cares for the teams down there. I'm sure the Dolphins have had mutual disdain towards their division rivals (mainly the Patriots), but they haven't been really good enough in the past decade to generate sheer hatred from the others. No one views the Marlins as a true rival because despite their two WS titles, they have done absolutely NOTHING in their existance. The Heat don't have any rivals in the Southeast division, mainly because they've absolutely dominated it throughout the years. I'd say they have had (at the very least) a temporary rivalry with Boston when LeBron was in Miami, but that's died off. No one hates the Panthers and hell, do they even hate anyone?

Bills-Dolphins gets a lot of play around Western NY, though I think part of why it's become more one sided is they hate the Dolphins without any feeling at all for Miami/South Florida.  It's like the Bills think they're the Red Sox & the Dolphins are somehow their Yankees.

[CubsFanBudMan]

14 hours ago, leopard88 said:

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

 

 

I love how historically accurate that is.

[2001mark]

Tennessee Titans need to get their act together again, but they did have good games not long ago with the Colts & Jaguars.  

 

Houston Texans arch rival Dallas Cowboys seems a bit one sided, like the Jets-Giants yet they'd need to share home market to mean more.

[The_Admiral]

Between the novelty of the new identity and Steve McNair being an all-time badass, the Tennessee Titans were great at being everyone's Second Team for a good while. Now it's like they don't even exist anymore.

[2001mark]

2 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Between the novelty of the new identity and Steve McNair being an all-time badass, the Tennessee Titans were great at being everyone's Second Team for a good while. Now it's like they don't even exist anymore.

I always wished they'd have kept their Oilers branding, with new logo & name- keep everything else.  Titans' entire brand looks like a flag football franchise.

[The_Admiral]

The new stuff was really cool at the time (weird abstract blue-flaming thingamabob! awesomeness for the new millennium!) but has aged woefully since, and the endless mix-and-match dilution hasn't helped matters. As much as I love the Houston Oilers' identity, it simply wasn't a portable one.

[B-Rich]

On Wednesday, June 01, 2016 at 9:53 PM, 4_tattoos said:

In the AFC however, I definitely feel like the Chargers don't have a true arch rival.

Having talked to some San Diegan Charger fans (1 native and one who has lived there since adulthood) I got the impression the Raiders were their archrival.  Makes sense; NoCal -SoCal split; same division going back to the AFL days, etc.

 

I always thought the Hornets/Pelicans and Memphis Grizzlies would have made good rivals-- both relocated to their respective locations within a year of each other, same division and the only 2 non-Texas teams in division; 2 southern cities on Mississippi River with musical leanings-- but it never germinated as such.

[B-Rich]

10 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

I wonder if New Orleans volunteered to change names because they were given financial incentives as well.

Nope.

 

10 hours ago, rams80 said:

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

Not even close.

 

10 hours 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. 

There was no 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll, either.

 

It'S 12:20 AM, and I'm doing this on my phone, so I'll give you the short answer, which is about the opposite of rams80's thesis. Benson bought the team from the league, and was happy to do so because he would now own BOTH pro franchises in his city; he wouldn't have to share the limelight or comparisons with another owner. It was no secret around here that he did not like sharing the limelight with George Shinn, just as it was no coincidence that he finally started a long-promised Arena League team (the VooDoo) shortly after Shinn moved the Hornets to New Orleans.  Benson also wanted a new name and identity SO BADLY that he convinced Stern to shorten the time period for a name and logo change from two years to one; in fact HE made it part of the deal for HIS purchase. The worst kept secret was that it was going to be "Pelicans" all along, the other names thrown out were all red herrings. Benson had the name "New Orleans Pelicans" wrapped up since 1993, when he tried to beat out the AAA Denver Zephyrs for the New Orleans spot with the double-A Charlotte Knights franchise (which he bought from, of all people, George Shinn) and lost.

 

Maybe tomorrow I'll post the inside scoop on how the pre-Benson Hornets could've had the Jazz name back.

[Rockstar Matt]

What about the Clippers? I've been thinking about it for a good while and I can't think of a single arch rival that's reciprocated. And the Angels too? 

 

This could be more of general ignorance on my part as they're not among my favorite teams.

[leopard88]

8 hours ago, the admiral said:

Between the novelty of the new identity and Steve McNair being an all-time badass, the Tennessee Titans were great at being everyone's Second Team for a good while. Now it's like they don't even exist anymore.

 

Before the Steelers-Ravens rivalry really took off, the Titans were probably No. 1 (or at least 1A) for a few years (1999-2003).  That was mostly because of the on-field competition and fizzled after realignment.

 

By the way, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of Titans fans who feel like the Ravens stole a Super Bowl from them.  I think the 2000 Divisional Round game in Tennessee really decided the Super Bowl championship that year, because the Titans probably would have beaten the Raiders and Giants if they had beaten the Ravens.

 

. . . and maybe two Super Bowls if you add 2008, when the Ravens again beat a No. 1 seed Titans team in Tennessee in the Divisional Round.

 

13 hours ago, 4_tattoos said:

Now that I think about it. In a weird way the Nationals biggest rival may actually be the Orioles. Not sure how the O's view the Nats though.

 

I think O's-Nats is like Mets-Yankees Light.  There is a definitely a rivalry because the fan bases overlap, though not to the same extent as occurs with teams in the same city.  However, it's hard to think of a team as your biggest rival when you only play them 4 times a year and aren't competing with them for a playoff spot.