PDA

View Full Version : 10 Most Embarrassing Franchises In Sports


Buccaneer
11-20-2007, 07:59 PM
Not much journalism here but worth of a bunch of head nods.


10. Arizona Cardinals: In a league that recites "parity" like a mantra and has rigged the rules to ensure competitive balance, the Cardinals still can't win. Kudos, though, that they no longer ask their fans to fry on sizzling-hot aluminum bleachers anymore. And yes, I realize that I've just gently mocked the franchise that employs God's favorite quarterback, Kurt Warner, and now risk being smote by that same divine being. Do with me what Thy will.

9. Pittsburgh Pirates: Their last above-.500 season came in 1992, when a skinny young lad named Barry Bonds was zipping around the Steeltown basepaths and smiling happily for the cameras. They've lavished riches on Derek Bell and given up on Aramis Ramirez. They built a spectacular ballpark and populated its home dugout with quadruple-A dreck. But gee, the new GM seems to have some idea what he's doing, as witnessed by this most spontaneous answer in the history of mass media (http://pittsburgh.pirates.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071101&content_id=2290860&vkey=news_pit&fext=.jsp&c_id=pit). Truth is, after the common-sense apocalypses that were the Cam Bonifay and Dave Littlefield eras, all Pirates fans really wanted to hear is that ERA will no longer be the determining factor in most baseball decisions.

8. Chicago Blackhawks: Contrary to popular myth, they do still play hockey in Chicago. And miracle of miracles, the 'Hawks are actually allowing a local cable outfit to broadcast regular-season home games for the first time in decades. Next thing you know, they'll thank fans for their support in a warmly phrased letter.

7. Boston Bruins: Whoa, two NHL teams making an appearance in a multi-sport feature? Truly, professional hockey is capturing the imagination of the American public in a way it hasn't since Gretzky married that crazy-gambler American Anthem chick. You know, the one with the big ... heart.
When I lived up in Boston, the Patriots were flirting with a move to Hartford and Red Sox Nation was more like Red Sox Borough or Red Sox Hamlet. In those low-key early-1990s years, Bruins fans were conducting a nightly waiting-for-Godot vigil on behalf of Cam Neely and his perpetually balky leg/hip. He was, by a wide margin, the biggest sports story in town.
Now, after years of benign neglect and penny-pinching butchery (like trading since-anointed MVP Joe Thornton for a bag of toques), the Bruins find themselves the fourth most popular hockey team in their home city, behind the Harvard, Boston College and Boston University squads. It's hard to pity stupid rich people, but the Jacobs family provokes just that reaction.

6. Texas Rangers: I'm not quite sure whether the Rangers are embarrassing or sad. On the "embarrassing" side of the ledger, we have the $65 million contract doled out to Chan Ho Park, dealing away Chris Young and Alfonso Soriano for a few spare parts, and owner Tom Hicks' I'm-trying-to-cover-my-ass accusations about Juan Gonzalez and steroid usage. On the "sad" side, we have the trades in which they ditched sublime performers Mark Teixeira and Alex Rodriguez, whose lofty salaries had to be shed to atone for other personnel missteps. It's close, but I'm going with embarrassing.

Now, a team like the Kansas City Royals -- they're a sad case, as much of one as you're likely to see outside a Sally Struthers infomercial. Pray for the souls of both their players and fans, and be sure to leave your gently worn jackets and overshirts in the Royals bin at the local Salvation Army depot.

5. Minnesota Timberwolves: Forget that they were caught attempting to circumvent the salary cap a few years back in order to secure the services of Joe Smith -- yes, Joe Smith -- and forget that they just dealt Kevin Garnett for 40 cents on the dollar. The team's real crime was failing to give much in the way of support to Garnett, the rare super-duper-mega-star who busts his ass every night, over the last decade. This is a class-action negligence lawsuit waiting to happen.

4. Oakland Raiders: "Commitment to excellence"? If you ask me, it's more like "commitment to excrement"! Hoy-o! Separately, Al Davis is old.

3. University of Notre Dame football: Make no mistake: given their media and marketing wingspan, they're as much a franchise as any professional team. I'll give them this, though: they sure know how to make excuses. "Ty Willingham couldn't recruit," "Charlie Weis' blood-sugar level prevents him from installing a functional defensive scheme," etc.

2. Baltimore Orioles: Anybody who believes there are situations in sports that are simply impossible to screw up should take a gander at the way the Orioles have reduced themselves to a farce. You've got a city with a fine baseball tradition and the most glorious ballpark on the planet, and yet owner Peter Angelos can't help but huff and puff and blow away every capable baseball man in his employ. Bonus points go to Aubrey Huff for his charming characterization of Baltimore as a "horse town" and stripper-painting exhibition on Bubba the Love Sponge's show this week. Can a guest-hosting stint on The Charlie Rose Show be far behind?

[B]1. New York Knicks: The list had to end this way, obviously. So I'll ignore the obvious embarrassments -- the misguided signings, the trades for overpaid and overrated stars, the possibility of a "we won't touch your winkie!" disclaimer on back of every ticket in the wake of the sexual-harassment hijinks -- and point to a recent experience to illustrate just how far they've fallen.

There was a single booth at the ING New York City Marathon Expo two weeks ago that didn't have any visitors. The one for titanium-strength shoelaces had plenty of gawkers. The one for the Anchorage Pro-Am 10K Race and Celebrity Clam Bake had its share. The one touting the ready availability of Knicks tickets for the team's home opener, replete with videos and the promise of free T-shirts? Zilch. Nobody cared, and this in a town that worships, worships, worships its hoops.

That's what the Knicks have been reduced to: Looking for love in all the wrong places. Theirs is a richly deserved irrelevance.

jeff061
11-20-2007, 08:06 PM
I don't even follow hockey all that much, but the Thornton trade still makes me cringe. Everyone thought it was an idiotic move the second it was made and were proven right pretty much immediately.

Raiders Army
11-20-2007, 08:15 PM
I think that 3 Lombardis, 4 Super Bowl appearances, and 11 AFC Championship appearances would disqualify the Raiders on this list. That's some good rationale there: "commitment to excrement". :rolleyes:

Rizon
11-20-2007, 08:22 PM
I think that 3 Lombardis, 4 Super Bowl appearances, and 11 AFC Championship appearances would disqualify the Raiders on this list. That's some good rationale there: "commitment to excrement". :rolleyes:

That was what, 100 years ago?

sterlingice
11-20-2007, 08:33 PM
I'm pretty sure that one awful year doesn't make Notre Dame the 3rd most embarassing franchise. Bad year, certainly. But I think you need sustained bad to be embarassing.

...I was just happy to open the thread and not see the Royals.

SI

stevew
11-20-2007, 08:46 PM
The pirates are dramatically underrated on this list. Just look at some of the trades, and the way they have spent money.

terpkristin
11-20-2007, 09:13 PM
The pirates are dramatically underrated on this list. Just look at some of the trades, and the way they have spent money.

Meanwhile, you look at the O's and you get a perfect case of how an owner has very obviously gone out of his way to destroy a team and guarantee they'll be unsuccessful...

Edit to add: Though I'm a Boston fan (my grandfather was one), I cheer for the O's as long as they're not playing Boston, and end up going to a few games a year (Camden Yards is a great stadium). Peter Angelos has RUINED any chance for this team, I can't wait until somebody competent owns the team...IF that ever happens.

/tk

Maple Leafs
11-20-2007, 09:23 PM
No Bengals?

Even in recent years when they've been good, they've still arguably been embarrassing based on the off-field stuff.

Royals could have been there too. And I can think of one or two more hockey teams that could make the list.

JPhillips
11-20-2007, 09:24 PM
I won't pay any attention to this list until the Bengals are on it.

Raiders Army
11-20-2007, 10:39 PM
That was what, 100 years ago?

How are the Fins not on the list? They're just as bad if not worse. You guys take Ricky Williams back yet?

ISiddiqui
11-20-2007, 10:43 PM
Charlie Weis' blood-sugar level prevents him from installing a functional defensive scheme

LOL!

Chief Rum
11-20-2007, 10:46 PM
Clippers have come so far. :)

Atocep
11-20-2007, 10:51 PM
Clippers have come so far. :)

Ya know, as I was reading the list I was thinking the same thing. For so long the clips were automatically the #1 team on that list like that. Now they're not even in the top 10.

CraigSca
11-20-2007, 10:57 PM
My Dad's an O's fan and instilled that in both me and my brother. Thus far, my kids are O's fans, but I'm afraid they'll get tainted by watching winning franchises. This stinks, because the O's used to be such a class act and use to win the right way - pitching, defense, timely hitting and homegrown talent.

Matt Wieters, Nolan Reimhold, etc., can't come to the majors fast enough.

Schmidty
11-20-2007, 11:19 PM
This list is horrid without the Lions. They should be #1.

Rizon
11-20-2007, 11:37 PM
How are the Fins not on the list? They're just as bad if not worse. You guys take Ricky Williams back yet?

We're just a couple of years away. We took Ricky back with open pipes ... I mean arms.

RendeR
11-20-2007, 11:43 PM
I think that 3 Lombardis, 4 Super Bowl appearances, and 11 AFC Championship appearances would disqualify the Raiders on this list. That's some good rationale there: "commitment to excrement". :rolleyes:


I think you're mising his theme with only 2 NFL franchises in there.

The cards are the long term futility bowl winners. They even best the bengals in this category as Cincy at least got to two super bowls in the modern era of the NFL.

The Raiders get a higher ranking in this list because, when it comes to stupid moves, bad management and all around horrible decision making by what at one time was the powerhouse franchise in the NFL for 2 decades, the Raiders have become a laughingstock.

The Dolphins could well jump to #2 on this list if they keep their current idiocy going a couple more years though....


PS: get your shit straight, The Raiders have been in 5 Super Bowls, not 4...some fan. They are 3-2 in those games (ii, xi, xv, xviii, xxxviii)

korme
11-21-2007, 12:07 AM
I'm pretty sure that one awful year doesn't make Notre Dame the 3rd most embarassing franchise. Bad year, certainly. But I think you need sustained bad to be embarassing.

...I was just happy to open the thread and not see the Royals.

SI

"", replacing Royals with Reds

Raiders Army
11-21-2007, 06:52 AM
I think you're mising his theme with only 2 NFL franchises in there.

The cards are the long term futility bowl winners. They even best the bengals in this category as Cincy at least got to two super bowls in the modern era of the NFL.

The Raiders get a higher ranking in this list because, when it comes to stupid moves, bad management and all around horrible decision making by what at one time was the powerhouse franchise in the NFL for 2 decades, the Raiders have become a laughingstock.

The Dolphins could well jump to #2 on this list if they keep their current idiocy going a couple more years though....


PS: get your shit straight, The Raiders have been in 5 Super Bowls, not 4...some fan. They are 3-2 in those games (ii, xi, xv, xviii, xxxviii)

doh

Honolulu_Blue
11-21-2007, 08:18 AM
This list is horrid without the Lions. They should be #1.

While I don't thing the Lions should be #1 (I think the Cardinals are actually have been the most embarrassing franchise in the NFL over the last 50+ years), I agree that any such list without the Lions is wholly incomplete.

Passacaglia
11-21-2007, 08:28 AM
Guy can't seem to deicde if he's talking about historically embarrassing, or embarrassing right now.

Mizzou B-ball fan
11-21-2007, 08:30 AM
...I was just happy to open the thread and not see the Royals.

SI

I actually was glad that they selected the baseball teams like the Rangers and the O's. Those teams have far larger revenue streams than the Royals and haven't done jack sh*# with what was available. Hell, the Royals actually have some good young talent, a couple of good starting pitchers, solid bullpen, and $30 million to spend in free agency. I'm not sure that the Royals will get more than 70-75 wins this year, but that has more to do with the strength of the division than anything else.

Dr. Sak
11-21-2007, 08:37 AM
I'm pretty sure that one awful year doesn't make Notre Dame the 3rd most embarassing franchise. Bad year, certainly. But I think you need sustained bad to be embarassing.

SI

Maybe they are just talking about their recent Bowl record...that's embarrassing.

MrDNA
11-21-2007, 08:57 PM
The most recent SI has a feature on the "losingest players in sports." That is to say the guys who, no matter what team they're on, continue to lose. In basketball, baseball and hockey, those losing players had moved around a bit; in football FOUR OF THE TOP FIVE ARE CURRENTLY ON THE LIONS. That's embarassment. They're doing OK this year, though.

Anthony
11-21-2007, 09:16 PM
i don't understand the comment about the Pirates GM "most spontaneous answer...". i don't get it.


the Knicks deserve to be #1. i'm kind of numb when it comes to them, i was a diehard fan during the 90's when Riley and Van Gundy were the coaches, cuz i liked their dirty rough style of play. seemed very street to me. i'm numb cuz no matter which player you bring in or which coach/GM, James Dolan is still running the show and until his father Charles removes him then the Knicks will be a truly awful team. i follow the Knicks now cuz they're a real reality tv show. they're a mess and i'm curious just how low this can go.

Buccaneer
11-21-2007, 09:32 PM
The response to the first questions from the Pirates GM seemed like an excerpt from a moneyball white paper.

Anthony
11-21-2007, 09:38 PM
ahhhhhh....

Crim
11-21-2007, 09:47 PM
Speaking of which, is this number eleven on the list?

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=59768

sterlingice
11-21-2007, 11:32 PM
I actually was glad that they selected the baseball teams like the Rangers and the O's. Those teams have far larger revenue streams than the Royals and haven't done jack sh*# with what was available. Hell, the Royals actually have some good young talent, a couple of good starting pitchers, solid bullpen, and $30 million to spend in free agency. I'm not sure that the Royals will get more than 70-75 wins this year, but that has more to do with the strength of the division than anything else.

I remember Soren going through and doing this exercise and the number is not $30M+ like some people are claiming. After factoring in arbitration, options, bonuses, etc- it's more like $12-$15M. And considering how sparse the market is and what deals are threatening to be out there, I'd rather them sit on some of that money or trade for talent rather than blowing $8M per year on a mediocre 2B or SS as is being bantied about.

SI