What city should be Loser-ville U.S.A?

[NJTank]

I would say Buffalo

No, no, no. If a tournament to find Loserville, USA were actually held, Buffalo would be the favorite that breezed to the finals, only to be upset by Cleveland on a controversial call that failed to bring the Browns' pre-Super Bowl NFL championships into account. Buffalo citizens, outraged that they can't even win at losing, would be bitter and angry at ESPN for decades to come.

Well why cant Buffalo's back to back AFL titles count?

[habsfan1]

I would say Buffalo

No, no, no. If a tournament to find Loserville, USA were actually held, Buffalo would be the favorite that breezed to the finals, only to be upset by Cleveland on a controversial call that failed to bring the Browns' pre-Super Bowl NFL championships into account. Buffalo citizens, outraged that they can't even win at losing, would be bitter and angry at ESPN for decades to come.

Well why cant Buffalo's back to back AFL titles count?

I think they do. I thought Buffalo hadn't won squat until someone reminded me earlier about their pre-Super Bowl existence.

[Cujo]

I would say Buffalo

No, no, no. If a tournament to find Loserville, USA were actually held, Buffalo would be the favorite that breezed to the finals, only to be upset by Cleveland on a controversial call that failed to bring the Browns' pre-Super Bowl NFL championships into account. Buffalo citizens, outraged that they can't even win at losing, would be bitter and angry at ESPN for decades to come.

Well why cant Buffalo's back to back AFL titles count?

Buffalo won an 8-team league in 1964 and 1965.

Compared to today's standards, that feat would be like making the Conference Title Game in back-to-back years.

[WSU151]

I would say Buffalo

No, no, no. If a tournament to find Loserville, USA were actually held, Buffalo would be the favorite that breezed to the finals, only to be upset by Cleveland on a controversial call that failed to bring the Browns' pre-Super Bowl NFL championships into account. Buffalo citizens, outraged that they can't even win at losing, would be bitter and angry at ESPN for decades to come.

So if this tournament of Loservilles had a winner, wouldn't the #2 team really be the ultimate Loserville? Or would the contest between the two finalists just end in a tie?

[infrared41]

Even though I nominated Philly, I'm seeing allot of convincing evidence its Cleveland.

How about we nominate New Jersey just on principle.

Three Stanley Cups and two NBA Finals say nah.

None of that changes the fact that it all took place in New Jersey. That alone is enough to take the shine off anything.

[DEAD!]

Even though I nominated Philly, I'm seeing allot of convincing evidence its Cleveland.

How about we nominate New Jersey just on principle.

Three Stanley Cups and two NBA Finals say nah.

None of that changes the fact that it all took place in New Jersey. That alone is enough to take the shine off anything.

Since the subject is Loser-Ville I would suggest that those events happened in East Rutherford... now, Newark on the other hand is a different topic.

[WJMorris3]

How about Washington, DC? (Or does DC United go against that?)

If we look at the four major sports, they've won 7 championships, but it took them 217 seasons to record that figure. I'll bet you that Philly is at least better than that.

EDIT: Philadelphia has won 16 championships in the four major sports, in 340 seasons.

[infrared41]

Even though I nominated Philly, I'm seeing allot of convincing evidence its Cleveland.

How about we nominate New Jersey just on principle.

Three Stanley Cups and two NBA Finals say nah.

None of that changes the fact that it all took place in New Jersey. That alone is enough to take the shine off anything.

Since the subject is Loser-Ville I would suggest that those events happened in East Rutherford... now, Newark on the other hand is a different topic.

Doesn't matter. East Rutherford is still in New Jersey. That's all it takes.

[HedleyLamarr]

How about Washington, DC? (Or does DC United go against that?)

If we look at the four major sports, they've won 7 championships, but it took them 217 seasons to record that figure. I'll bet you that Philly is at least better than that.

EDIT: Philadelphia has won 16 championships in the four major sports, in 340 seasons.

Considering that three of Washington's "Big Four" teams are coming off postseason appearances, I think that disqualifies the city....

[WJMorris3]

How about Washington, DC? (Or does DC United go against that?)

If we look at the four major sports, they've won 7 championships, but it took them 217 seasons to record that figure. I'll bet you that Philly is at least better than that.

EDIT: Philadelphia has won 16 championships in the four major sports, in 340 seasons.

Considering that three of Washington's "Big Four" teams are coming off postseason appearances, I think that disqualifies the city....

Washington teams played 14 playoff games in the last go around and won 5 of them. Meanwhile, the Philly teams over the same span played 28 playoff games, winning 11, which is roughly the same percentage of about one in three, though slightly better.

In addition, Washington teams have advanced in the playoffs just three times (in fourteen attempts) since 2000. Philadelphia teams have advanced twenty times (in forty attempts) in that period.

[KevinMcD]

I would say Buffalo

No, no, no. If a tournament to find Loserville, USA were actually held, Buffalo would be the favorite that breezed to the finals, only to be upset by Cleveland on a controversial call that failed to bring the Browns' pre-Super Bowl NFL championships into account. Buffalo citizens, outraged that they can't even win at losing, would be bitter and angry at ESPN for decades to come.

Well why cant Buffalo's back to back AFL titles count?

Buffalo won an 8-team league in 1964 and 1965.

Compared to today's standards, that feat would be like making the Conference Title Game in back-to-back years.

And most of the Stanley Cups that Montreal, Rangers, 'Hawks, Leafs, Bruins, and Red Wings won occurred with a 6 team league. Should those cups not count?

Also, I believe that the Bills actually challenged the NFL Champion Cleveland Browns in 1965 to the first "AFL-NFL Championship Game." But the Browns refused and the next year the two leagues organized a championship game, the first Super Bowl.

[Sport]

The reason I chose Cleveland was due to a number of things.

- It's been since 1964 that any team has won anything.

- Cleveland's managed to LOSE both an NHL team and an NFL team at some point in their history. Not many cities can boast that.

- The indians went on this small 40 year run where they didn't make the playoffs. And not only did they not make the playoffs, but they rarely finished higher than 4th. My uncle was at that Perfect game with about 2,000 other people.

- The Browns are one of only a handful of franchises who have yet to participate in a super bowl.

- The Cavaliers were wholly irrelevant in the late 90's and early 00's and were one of the worst teams in the league for much of their history.

- and the heartbreaking high profile ways teams find a way to lose puts them in a lot of people's minds when it comes to losing. The famous ones are the most recent NBA finals sweep, the 97 world series to a 5 year old expansion team, red right 88, the drive, the fumble. You know, the classics. Cleveland's had it rough, you can't dispute that.

Although Cleveland hasn't won a pro champinoship since 1964 they have won more then Cincinnati.

Let's compare.

MLB: Reds 5 - Indians 2

NFL: Bengals 0 - Browns 4 (8 if you count the Browns 4 AAFC championships)

In my math 6 Cleveland pro championships beats 5 Cincinnati pro championships every time.

Cleveland is not even the biggest loser city in Ohio it Cincinnati.

You're correct, but I think we can both agree that it's an unfair assertion to compare NFL championships between the Bengals and Browns when the Bengals have only played in the Super Bowl era. The Browns have won as many championships since the inception of the Bengals as the Bengals. It's not Cincinnati's fault for not having an NFL team (of any longstanding existence) prior to 1968. I'll put it simply, the Bengals weren't eligible for the titles in the same years as the Browns because they didn't yet exist, so while Cleveland can claim them as championships, don't compare those championships to Cincinnati's football team.

[Don]

no ones brought up Phoenix yet, Yotes suck, Cardinals suck, the Suns are ok but cant win in the playoffs. D-Backs are their only good team with 2 world titles, but could still make the playoffs this year with a below .500 record.

[Cujo]

no ones brought up Phoenix yet, Yotes suck, Cardinals suck, the Suns are ok but cant win in the playoffs. D-Backs are their only good team with 2 world titles, but could still make the playoffs this year with a below .500 record.

I'm counting just one championship for the D-Backs, 2001.

I think why Phoenix gets a pass is because the only team they had before the late-80s were the Suns. The Cardinals moved from St. Louis in 1988, the Coyotes came from Winnepeg in '96, and the Diamondbacks weren't born until 1998. On top of that, Phoenix doesn't have as many massive post-season failures as Buffalo or Cleveland do. The Suns dropped a pair of well-played Finals to the Celtics in '76 and to the great Bulls dynasty of the 90s, but I would have to say the D-Backs more than made up for those losses by beating the Yankees in one of the best World Series ever.

I can understand bringing Phoenix into the Loserville conversation, but they've got nothing on Buffalo or C-Town.

[Don]

no ones brought up Phoenix yet, Yotes suck, Cardinals suck, the Suns are ok but cant win in the playoffs. D-Backs are their only good team with 2 world titles, but could still make the playoffs this year with a below .500 record.

I'm counting just one championship for the D-Backs, 2001.

I think why Phoenix gets a pass is because the only team they had before the late-80s were the Suns. The Cardinals moved from St. Louis in 1988, the Coyotes came from Winnepeg in '96, and the Diamondbacks weren't born until 1998. On top of that, Phoenix doesn't have as many massive post-season failures as Buffalo or Cleveland do. The Suns dropped a pair of well-played Finals to the Celtics in '76 and to the great Bulls dynasty of the 90s, but I would have to say the D-Backs more than made up for those losses by beating the Yankees in one of the best World Series ever.

I can understand bringing Phoenix into the Loserville conversation, but they've got nothing on Buffalo or C-Town.

youre right 1, i was thinking the Marlins when saying 2.

[Don]

How about Washington, DC? (Or does DC United go against that?)

If we look at the four major sports, they've won 7 championships, but it took them 217 seasons to record that figure. I'll bet you that Philly is at least better than that.

EDIT: Philadelphia has won 16 championships in the four major sports, in 340 seasons.

Considering that three of Washington's "Big Four" teams are coming off postseason appearances, I think that disqualifies the city....

Washington teams played 14 playoff games in the last go around and won 5 of them. Meanwhile, the Philly teams over the same span played 28 playoff games, winning 11, which is roughly the same percentage of about one in three, though slightly better.

In addition, Washington teams have advanced in the playoffs just three times (in fourteen attempts) since 2000. Philadelphia teams have advanced twenty times (in forty attempts) in that period.

i can see bringing my city into the discussion. i dont really argue with it because outside of the Redskins, the city hasnt won anything with the exception of the 1 Bullets title, and 1 Senators title in 1924. you cant forget DC Uniteds 4 MLS Cups, but i think we're talking big 4 so i guess that disqualifies them. i'd really like to argue with the cities sports merits over Phillys, but i really cant. the only thing i can really say is we've won a title more recently, and thats it.

[maz]

If not for the Steelers win in Super Bowl XL Pittsburgh would surely be a candidate.

Id say no. Not just because id hate to see Pittsburgh on a list like this, but because theyve had more success than some other cities have had recently.

The pirates have sucked since 1992, and the pens sucked for 6 out of the last 10 years, true, but the Steelers not only won Super Bowl XL, but also a few division championshps, including this past year.

The PITT Panthers have won the regular season championship for the big east in basketball and finally won the big east tournament after 6 runner-up appearances - 7 appearences in the past 8 years, which means theyve also had much regular season and some tournament success.

The penguins won the conference and division championships this past year, as well as many times in the 90s if we wanna go back that far, including the Stanley Cup in '91 and '92, and the president's trophy in '93.

And if we do want to go back that far, the steelers won the AFC to make it to Super Bowl XXX.

Where exactly is the line of comparison here? 'Cuz if we wanna go back even further than that, the Pirates won their division in 91 and 92...right before the infamous Sid Bream slide/not the best throw from Barry Bonds.

That, and the Penguins are promising for the future, and the Steelers are never non-contenders for long, and the PITT football and Basketball teams are even starting to look up, and even the Pirates are, at the moment, not quite as sucky as in recent years. So if were loserville now, we wont be for long.

[B-Rich]

From the intitial standpoint of the Saints history alone, I was about to nominate my town, New Orleans, for this spot. But then I looked at the criteria in the original link, and thought better of it:

Criteria

a) been absolutley awful recently, whether it be in pro sports or college. Well the Saints were 7-9 last year, NFC championship game the year before, and other than the Katrina-screwed up year of '05 were around .500 the five years previous. The Hornets were 56-26, won the NBA Southwest division and were within a game 7 of going to the Western Confererence Finals. Tulane, as usual, has been nothing to write home about over the past few years. So all in all, we don't rate in this category.

be historically bad, whether it be an area that hasn?t won a championship in years (like 20) or if it's a college, a school that hasn?t won a meaningful championship in only who knows when. Okay, this is where we "excel". Saints have been around since 1967, and due to inept managment/ownership in early years, were absolutely TERRIBLE. No winning season for TWENTY YEARS. No playoff wins until 2000 season. Furthest they've gotten is to the NFC Championship Game. The Hornets since being here have made the playoffs three out of the six years, only getting past the first round once. The Jazz never had a wining season and never made the playoffs... Tulane is notoriously bad in football, had a little success in basketball, and is pretty good in baseball... The only "national championships" we have are the two held by our AAA franchise, the Zephyrs. I'd say we win this category hands down..

c) have atrocious fan support, so bad that the teams are either just about out the door or that their fans stopped showing up. Not the case here. Pre-Katrina, tha Saints usually sold out each week just in time to lift the blackout; post-Katrina, the Dome is sold-out with a large season ticket waiting list a la the Redskins or Broncos.... plus the fact that fans have come to see such a a historically bad team counts for something... the Hornets attendance left a lot to be desired, but with success, they were selling out the house the second half of the season, and are on track to sell out the lower bowl of the arena via season tickets already this year... Tulane football attandance is an absolute joke-- they get more for high school games in the 'Dome...

d) have been run so poorly that there seems like there is absolutley no hope whatsoever, and that makes you sad. Again, it used to be the case with the Saints, pre-Benson (and for the three-year debacle of Ditka's tenure), but since Benson has become owner the Saints have historically hovered around .500 ball, and are usually either contenders or reloading. The Hornets management and coaching (finally) seem to be on the same page and know what they are doing; fans are excited and expect more of the same from last year. Even Tulane fans can look forward to once in a while getting an up-and-coming coach that can get them a winning, bowl-eligible season or two before he leaves for greener pastures (Mack Brown, Tommy Bowden). So, I guess we don't fit this criteria..

[Luigi74]

I would say Buffalo

No, no, no. If a tournament to find Loserville, USA were actually held, Buffalo would be the favorite that breezed to the finals, only to be upset by Cleveland on a controversial call that failed to bring the Browns' pre-Super Bowl NFL championships into account. Buffalo citizens, outraged that they can't even win at losing, would be bitter and angry at ESPN for decades to come.

Well why cant Buffalo's back to back AFL titles count?

Buffalo won an 8-team league in 1964 and 1965.

Compared to today's standards, that feat would be like making the Conference Title Game in back-to-back years.

Same goes with Cleveland counting AAFC Titles.

[PittsburghSucks]

I would say Buffalo

No, no, no. If a tournament to find Loserville, USA were actually held, Buffalo would be the favorite that breezed to the finals, only to be upset by Cleveland on a controversial call that failed to bring the Browns' pre-Super Bowl NFL championships into account. Buffalo citizens, outraged that they can't even win at losing, would be bitter and angry at ESPN for decades to come.

Well why cant Buffalo's back to back AFL titles count?

Buffalo won an 8-team league in 1964 and 1965.

Compared to today's standards, that feat would be like making the Conference Title Game in back-to-back years.

Same goes with Cleveland counting AAFC Titles.

I think not.

The Browns won 4 stright AAFC titles then backed it up by winning the NFL championship in there first year in the NFL.

Has any other team won an NFL title their first year of joining the NFL?

No, and it will never happen again.