Most Tortured/Suffering Sports Cities (REDUX UPDATE)

[DS729]

Yeah, but they chose to be the Clippers over staying in Buffalo. That's gotta sting

Eh, that's not so bad anymore. for now

What?I thought the Clippers were supposed to be the first-round flameouts for the rest of the decade? I'd consider that "torture".

And yes, Canadian cities should be lumped in their, and their CFL teams need to count. So that basically throws most Canadian markets out the window.

[IceCap]

Ottawa probably has a case as far as Canadian cities go. The Rough Riders hadn't won a Grey Cup in twenty years when they went under in 1996. They were replaced by the dumpster fire that was the Renegades for a few years before they folded. Then they languished without a CFL team for years until finally getting the Redblacks.

The Senators have never beaten their provincial rivals in the playoffs and got beaten handily in their one Stanley Cup Finals appearance.

[Still MIGHTY]

Ottawa probably has a case as far as Canadian cities go. The Rough Riders hadn't won a Grey Cup in twenty years when they went under in 1996. They were replaced by the dumpster fire that was the Renegades for a few years before they folded. Then they languished without a CFL team for years until finally getting the Redblacks. REDBLACKS

The Senators have never beaten their provincial rivals in the playoffs and got beaten handily in their one Stanley Cup Finals appearance.

Fixed

[IceCap]

How could I have been so callous?

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Ottawa definitely gets the nod in Canada.

Your 1927 Stanley Cup Champions:

[FiddySicks]

Clearly, the most suffering sports city right now is us; Boston.

What more do you people want? Sheesh, Boston fans in general act like bullies to fans in other cities, then act surprised when those other fans call them out for crying sports-misery wolf.

This post summarizes how dumb sports fans can be. Seriously - "bullies"? You think maybe you're taking this whole thing just a tad too seriously?

Here's the worst thing that's being overlooked. How in the bloody hell, on a sports logos and uniforms board, has nobody pointed out those rings?! Good lord, those are China Counterfeit thread worthy.

[FiddySicks]

Yeah, Cleveland wins.

http://www.faniq.com/blog/Cleveland-fans-to-get-coloring-book-Why-is-Daddy-Sad-on-Sundays-Blog-75416

Gotta teach em to have no hope while they're still so young and impressionable!

[BigBubba]

Cleveland, Buffalo, Montreal, don't really care the rest of the way down.

All in the past thirty years. Yeah, the last 10-20 years of Expos probably defined "sports torture", but I think five pro sports championships in that span makes up for that.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Yea but waiting over 20 years for a cup in a city that averaged one every 3 years with several in a row multiple times is a bit painful. But nonetheless, they have 24 Cups. They've experienced glory. Plus the Alouettes. They're out of the discussion.

[dbadefense1990]

Yea but waiting over 20 years for a cup in a city that averaged one every 3 years with several in a row multiple times is a bit painful. But nonetheless, they have 24 Cups. They've experienced glory. Plus the Alouettes. They're out of the discussion.

You have to consider how many teams were in the NHL at the time of the majority of their Cups.

Now I'm not trying to bash Montreal fans in general, but Canadiens fans specifically should have no reason to complain when they won the Stanley Cup because of an illegal stick (1993), because the other team had too many men on the ice (1979) and because they were spared from a showdown with Gretzky because of his team's own goal in the Divisional round (1986).

[IceCap]

Yea but waiting over 20 years for a cup in a city that averaged one every 3 years with several in a row multiple times is a bit painful. But nonetheless, they have 24 Cups. They've experienced glory. Plus the Alouettes. They're out of the discussion.

You have to consider how many teams were in the NHL at the time of the majority of their Cups.

That means exactly jack. The Canadiens are the winningest team in the NHL. They're going through a dry spell, but that doesn't undo the 24 Stanley Cups (only 23 were won under the NHL, for whatever it's worth).

Now I'm not trying to bash Montreal fans in general, but Canadiens fans specifically should have no reason to complain when they won the Stanley Cup because of an illegal stick (1993)...

Marty McSorley had an illegal stick. It violated the rules. Get over it. It shouldn't be hard, as I doubt you were even watching the NHL at the time.

...because the other team had too many men on the ice (1979)...

Again, that's a rules violation and the Habs benefited. What's the problem again?

...and because they were spared from a showdown with Gretzky because of his team's own goal in the Divisional round (1986).

Hey, that's how the puck bounces sometimes. What's your point?

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

^ Everything he said.

They won the '79 Finals 4-1. Not sure how a too-many-men penalty would turn the entire series to the Rangers' favor. And even so, it's a penalty. The team did wrong.

What's your point here?

[BigBubba]

I'll never understand how dba thinks the "McSorely Curse" has any real significance to Canadian hockey fans. The only thing I care about from that year is the Gretzky high-stick.

And sure, there were only six teams, but then you have to consider how deep the talent pool was. Literally every team had multiple Hall of Famers. Let's be honest, today, there aren't really 30 teams competing for the Cup. Back then, you didn't have crappy teams who could be automatically discounted. Everyone had lots if talent (though a few moreso than the others).

[Kramerica Industries]

^ Everything he said.

They won the '79 Finals 4-1. Not sure how a too-many-men penalty would turn the entire series to the Rangers' favor. And even so, it's a penalty. The team did wrong.

What's your point here?

Too many men refers to the series-saving power play the Habs had in Game 7 against the Bruins.

[DnBronc]

I think Cincinnati needs to be higher. I’d put us fourth behind Cleveland, Buffalo, and Kansas City. We had the Big Red Machine, but the people who remember that team dwindles by the day. We won it all in 1990, but since then pretty much nothing has gone right. Here’s our resume (not even counting Super Bowl Losses):

• We haven't won a playoff matchup since 1995
• The Bengals haven’t won a single playoff game since 1990
• The Reds haven’t won a playoff series since 1995. Got swept hard by the Braves in the NLCS.
• The Reds and Bengals Have lost a collective 10 consecutive playoff matchups (that’s hard to do)
• In the 47 seasons since the 1990 World Series the Reds and Bengals have only qualified for the postseason 10 times combined
• First play of the first playoff game in 15 years. Carson Palmer’s knee gets shredded by the worst team in sports. Team never stood a chance after that.
• Reds won 96 games in 1999, lost one game playoff. Most wins by any team in the wild card era to miss the playoffs
• Bengals missed the playoffs for 15 straight years
• Reds went ten years without a winning season.
• 2012. After not suffering an injury to the five man rotation all season the best pitcher injures himself on his third or fourth pitch of game 1 of the LDS. Reds manage to win the first two games on the road. Blow the series by losing three straight all at home
• Not on my own personal list, but Kenyon Martin broke his leg in the CUSA tournament and kept a very good UC team from doing anything in the tournament.
• Mike Brown owns our football team.

Also, don't forget 2009, when the Bearcat football team was one game away from the BCS National Title Game, but Texas beat Nebraska in the Big 12 Title game.

Alabama would have done unspeakably terrible things to Cincinnati in the title game though.

I didn't include it because nobody here laments over the 2009 football team missing their shot. That's not a moment on anybody's list. Hell, it didn't even occur to me.

I guess losing Brian Kelly to Notre Dame and then getting blasted by Tebow and Florida in the Sugar Bowl would count for some people, but I don't think it was that damaging to the city's overall psyche. The Bengals' playoff loss to San Diego stung a lot more people than that UC football team.

Good points, there. It sounds like it would have been a situation where you would have been happy if you won that year, but if not, so what.

I have two other moments that also were bad for Cincinnati, though:

1. The Maurice Stokes injury in 1958

2. The Greg Cook injury in 1969

If Stokes didn't hit his head, or if it was treated in the proper way, the Royals would have been a much bigger force in the 60's with him, Oscar Robertson, Jerry Lucas, and Jack Twyman.

Bill Simmons made a good point (yes it is a miracle) in his Basketball book about how the Royals should have been in the Western Division after the Chicago team became the Baltimore Bullets. He is right, because if they were in the West, and they had that team, they are probably playing the Celtics practically every year for the title, and they may have won a few of those matchups. And, as a result, maybe they stay in Cincinnati today.

Also, if Greg Cook didn't tear his rotator cuff in 1969, and had a long career, the Bengals may have won a SB or two, and maybe Bill Walsh may have had a better chance to succeed Brown in 1976.