Jump to content

Longest major title droughts


SteveR

Recommended Posts

ESPN is touting Philadelphia as the city with the longest major pro-sports championship drought -- 24 years since the 1984 Sixers. But that's predicated on cities having a team in MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL.

But if you expand the conversation to 3-of-4 leagues (usually meaning no NHL but it can be any), doesn't Cleveland top the list, going back to the early-60s Jim Brown Browns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 76ers actually won in 1983, so the drought would be 25 years. Considering there are four major teams, that equals 100 seasons without a championship*.

*yeah, the NHL had the year-long lockout, but 100 sounds better than 99.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 76ers actually won in 1983, so the drought would be 25 years. Considering there are four major teams, that equals 100 seasons without a championship*.

*yeah, the NHL had the year-long lockout, but 100 sounds better than 99.

Also no world series in 1994, so that makes it 98 chances we had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 76ers actually won in 1983, so the drought would be 25 years. Considering there are four major teams, that equals 100 seasons without a championship*.

*yeah, the NHL had the year-long lockout, but 100 sounds better than 99.

Also no world series in 1994, so that makes it 98 chances we had.

Well technically there was still a season... and there was zero chance of the Phillies winning anything that year, so I count it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Villanova's men's hoops title count as "major?"

Not that it makes that big of a difference...

No. College basketball is very provincial around here.

For one thing, the majority of city fans detest Villanova because they're the snobby, suburban, rich-white-kid school that many blame for the deterioration of the Big 5 (or City 6) round robins at the Pallestra. Full disclosure - I'm currently a grad student at Villanova, and not a basketball fan.

When St. Joe's was undefeated and ranked #1 in 2004, they still didn't have the support they should have because most people with affiliations to Temple, LaSalle, Penn, Villanova (especially Villanova), and even Drexel were actually rooting against them.

I have no affiliations (I don't care that I attend Villanova - I'm just there for the degree) so I get behind whichever team is having the great season... but I think I'm probably the minority (or at least not a strong enough majority.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ESPN is touting Philadelphia as the city with the longest major pro-sports championship drought -- 24 years since the 1984 Sixers. But that's predicated on cities having a team in MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL.

But if you expand the conversation to 3-of-4 leagues (usually meaning no NHL but it can be any), doesn't Cleveland top the list, going back to the early-60s Jim Brown Browns?

Yeah I'd say so...the last I heard we haven't won jack :censored: in Cleveland since 1964. Then again, I have been on vacation quite a bit the last few years so maybe I missed something while I was out of town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be harder for Cleveland since we don't have an NHL team, therefore we are still suffering longer?

Well by living in Cleveland, I'd say you're probably suffering every day, so I'll gladly surrender the title of "Suck Town USA" to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be harder for Cleveland since we don't have an NHL team, therefore we are still suffering longer?

Well by living in Cleveland, I'd say you're probably suffering every day, so I'll gladly surrender the title of "Suck Town USA" to you.

I kind of wish we had a hockey team. Columbus doesn't deserve one the only thing they are good for are the Buckeyes. Cleveland is a city full of loyal fans and I have no doubt that they would embrace a hockey team well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A dozen posts into the thread titled "Longest major title droughts", and no mention of the Cubs?!

I gotta say, I'm a little surprised. ^_^

We're talking about cities. Chicago has won numerous times since the Cubs last won.

True, but they were bound to come up...

I mean you could add up all four Philly sports droughts since '83 and it would come out to roughly the same amount as the Cubs 100-year dry spell. Just sayin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be harder for Cleveland since we don't have an NHL team, therefore we are still suffering longer?

Well by living in Cleveland, I'd say you're probably suffering every day, so I'll gladly surrender the title of "Suck Town USA" to you.

God knows they've earned it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a little off topic, but the other day I got to thinking about the opposite: cities that have won at least three out of the four major pro sports championships (World Series, Super Bowl, NBA Finals and Stanley Cup). If you go back to 1967 (the year of the first Super Bowl) there are currently nine such markets in the U.S.:

  1. Boston (Red Sox, Patriots, Celtics, Bruins)
  2. Chicago (White Sox, Bears, Bulls)
  3. Detroit (Tigers, Pistons, Red Wings)
  4. Los Angeles/Anaheim (Angels, Dodgers, Raiders, Lakers, Ducks); LA also qualifies by itself without the Anaheim-based teams
  5. Miami (Marlins, Dolphins, Heat)
  6. New York/northern NJ (Yankees, Mets, Giants, Jets, Rangers, Islanders, Devils); NYC also qualifies by itself without the NJ-based teams, since the Jets were still playing at Shea Stadium when they won Super Bowl III
  7. Philadelphia (Phillies, 76ers, Flyers)
  8. Pittsburgh (Pirates, Steelers, Penguins)
  9. San Francisco/Oakland (A's, 49ers, Raiders, Warriors)

What got me thinking about this is the fact that a tenth market could soon be joining this list: Tampa-St. Petersburg (Bucs, Lightning and possibly the Rays). In fact if the Rays win the World Series, Tampa-St. Pete will become the first market to win titles in three sports all in the 21st century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be harder for Cleveland since we don't have an NHL team, therefore we are still suffering longer?

Well by living in Cleveland, I'd say you're probably suffering every day, so I'll gladly surrender the title of "Suck Town USA" to you.

I kind of wish we had a hockey team. Columbus doesn't deserve one the only thing they are good for are the Buckeyes. Cleveland is a city full of loyal fans and I have no doubt that they would embrace a hockey team well.

i always wondered why they didn't move/put that team in Cin. or Cle,i guess when they decided to put them there they figured they'd get state wide fans

so is it that way,or do ppl in Ohio just blow them off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be harder for Cleveland since we don't have an NHL team, therefore we are still suffering longer?

Well by living in Cleveland, I'd say you're probably suffering every day, so I'll gladly surrender the title of "Suck Town USA" to you.

I kind of wish we had a hockey team. Columbus doesn't deserve one the only thing they are good for are the Buckeyes. Cleveland is a city full of loyal fans and I have no doubt that they would embrace a hockey team well.

So loyal the Barons stuck around a whole two years. I have to step in here because I'm tired of this perception that Cleveland/Cincinnati somehow deserve something over the State's capital. 40 years ago both cities were much larger and hence why they have NFL and MLB franchises, but Columbus has been one of the fastest growing cities in the United States over the last 20 years and now all three are comparable in size. Columbus is a big enough city to support NHL hockey. Once they start winning, which will be soon, the fans will show up again. We aren't stupid in Columbus, we aren't going to pay to watch them finish 13th year after year. The Blue Jackets are very popular in Columbus, but attendance has dropped because of the economy and the fact that they don't appear to be getting any better (to the casual fan). High school and youth hockey is getting big in Columbus while it's declining in other parts of the state.

Reasons why Cleveland/Cincinnati wouldn't work for the NHL: In Cleveland you have that whole thing where the team has to share the arena with the Cavs and the spotlight with the Browns and Indians. Cleveland had its shot with the Barons, nobody went. Nobody goes to the AHL games either. The Blue Jackets have lasted 4 times as long as the Barons and they own their arena. Cincinnati isn't as large a city as everyone thinks, and they also don't have an NHL quality arena, and wouldn't likely build one after building new football and baseball stadiums.

Point is, the NHL didn't decide that Columbus deserved a team. John H. McConnell and the City of Columbus decided they were going to bring major sports to Columbus and they did. That's why they aren't in Cleveland and that's why they aren't in Cincinnati. It's a study in perception versus reality.

Putting this as nicely as I can, Cleveland isn't that cool.

end rant/ back to topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.