PDA

View Full Version : This will make us all sick


Jerko
02-03-2004, 02:58 PM
The annual dreaded "Franchise Rankings"

Guess who comes in 99 out of 121?

(and 103 and 120 just for kicks)

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/sportsnation/franchiseRanks[/URL]

mandmandm
02-03-2004, 03:09 PM
And I thought that Wirtz could not look any worse.

Jerko
02-03-2004, 03:10 PM
He'd be last if they rated the Texans.

voodoochile
02-03-2004, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by mandmandm
And I thought that Wirtz could not look any worse.

There it is in a nutshell. If that isn't a wake up call for the team's ownership. I thought Hawks fans had a rough time of it and that they had bad ownership, but dead last. That's simply stunning...

SEALgep
02-03-2004, 03:17 PM
No doubt the Hawks are the worst hockey team, but the worst franchise? I don't agree, and I don't agree with a bunch of the others either.

fledgedrallycap
02-03-2004, 03:18 PM
Let's not get carried away...That list is garbage. They have the NY Knicks at 116!

skottyj242
02-03-2004, 03:21 PM
That really sucks. How pathetic is that.

kittle42
02-03-2004, 03:22 PM
The point of this list is, basically, that the Chicago White Sox, Bulls, Bears, and Blackhawks all suck.

And the list is right.

Also, the Knicks are in a similar downward spiral as the Bulls are, and they probably charge more to see a game.

mandmandm
02-03-2004, 03:23 PM
Hawks are ranked last. Texans are not ranked.

Originally posted by SEALgep
No doubt the Hawks are the worst hockey team, but the worst franchise? I don't agree, and I don't agree with a bunch of the others either.

As a former die hard Hawks fan, they have done so much to piss me off that I can't disagree with their ranking.

voodoochile
02-03-2004, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
No doubt the Hawks are the worst hockey team, but the worst franchise? I don't agree, and I don't agree with a bunch of the others either.

From where the Hawks were as recently as 5 years ago their stunning decline - ALL of it caused by bad management decisions. I mean the raising of ringside seats to $225 apiece per game when the team wasn't even making the playoffs anymore was stunning in it's stupidity and arrogance.

That used to be a very proud franchise...

I thought the Sox received a bad grade for their stadium (100th?) and figure that is mostly hype related. The rest of it is pretty straight foreward. Hope JR doesn't see that he is succeeding on a value basis.

Jerko
02-03-2004, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by mandmandm
Hawks are ranked last. Texans are not ranked.



As a former die hard Hawks fan, they have done so much to piss me off that I can't disagree with their ranking.

I meant if the Texans were ranked, they'd be above the Hawks too. I used to have season tickets for the Hawks, and now I would not take anybody to see them on a bet. Pretty sad with the labor issue coming up; this could be the last Hawk team as relates to how we know the current NHL, and what a sad way to go out.

Baby Fisk
02-03-2004, 03:28 PM
BoSox a mere 4 places ahead of the ChiSox. What's all this guff about "Red Sox Nation", then? Even their stadium ranking sucks.

hillbilly
02-03-2004, 03:28 PM
the hawks being dead last is dead on. I disagree just a tiny bit with the rest of the list. It's not bad, but I believe the sox should be ranked a few notches higher, but not much IMO. All the other chicago teams are dead on.

Mickster
02-03-2004, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by mandmandm
As a former die hard Hawks fan, they have done so much to piss me off that I can't disagree with their ranking.

I had season tix for 11 yrs before they really started to screw up in the mid 90's. I havn't watched a single game in 2 years!

If the Sox continue in this fashion, they'll get the same reaction from me.

mandmandm
02-03-2004, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Jerko
this could be the last Hawk team as relates to how we know the current NHL, and what a sad way to go out.

I have learned that I should count on Wirtz disappointing but I can't imagine a team worse than the current pile of crap that they throw out onto the ice.

MarqSox
02-03-2004, 03:37 PM
Here's all you need to know about this list: The Bulls ownership ranking was 83 while the Sox ownership ranking was 96.

THEY'RE THE SAME OWNER! Only the Bulls ownership ran the two best players and the winningest coach in franchise history out of town!

mantis1212
02-03-2004, 03:37 PM
This list is quite interesting I must say. I see a lot of effects from just the previous year however- I don't know how else to explain the Royals ranking ahead of the Yankees!

Having not followed the Hawks in years, I dont know- there still aren't any home games televised are there? If not, is there any other franchise existing that has the nerve to do that?

hillbilly
02-03-2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Here's all you need to know about this list: The Bulls ownership ranking was 83 while the Sox ownership ranking was 96.

THEY'RE THE SAME OWNER! Only the Bulls ownership ran the two best players and the winningest coach in franchise history out of town!

That doesnt mean the owners give the same amount of time, effort, and funds to both of his "prized" possessions. That doesn't make the list invalid.

mandmandm
02-03-2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Here's all you need to know about this list: The Bulls ownership ranking was 83 while the Sox ownership ranking was 96.

THEY'RE THE SAME OWNER! Only the Bulls ownership ran the two best players and the winningest coach in franchise history out of town!

Six rings in a decade for the White Sox would pacify me and probably most of the posters on this board for the rest of our lives. And while JR is involved in both teams the ownership of the two teams is different.

voodoochile
02-03-2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Here's all you need to know about this list: The Bulls ownership ranking was 83 while the Sox ownership ranking was 96.

THEY'RE THE SAME OWNER! Only the Bulls ownership ran the two best players and the winningest coach in franchise history out of town!

After they paid up and won 6 championships in 8 years.

MarqSox
02-03-2004, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by hillbilly
That doesnt mean the owners give the same amount of time, effort, and funds to both of his "prized" possessions. That doesn't make the list invalid.
Here is the criteria:
OWN (Ownership): Honesty; loyalty to players and city
He's been equally untruthful about both teams, his loyalty is, if anything, greater to Sox players (Baines and Thomas spring to mind) and he can't be more loyal to one city or the other since it's the same friggin city.

MarqSox
02-03-2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by mandmandm
Six rings in a decade for the White Sox would pacify me and probably most of the posters on this board for the rest of our lives. And while JR is involved in both teams the ownership of the two teams is different.
JR had nothing to do with the Bulls' championships other than be the lucky shmuck sitting in the owners' box.

Baby Fisk
02-03-2004, 03:48 PM
SIX SOX CHAMPIONSHIPS?! What a sweet hallucination. If they were spread out over 6 decades, the rest of my life would be lived in bliss... :cool:

mandmandm
02-03-2004, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
JR had nothing to do with the Bulls' championships other than be the lucky shmuck sitting in the owners' box.

So does he pull that horseshoe out of his butt when comes to the southside to watch games.

MRKARNO
02-03-2004, 03:59 PM
The blackhawks are the sorriest franchise in the sorriest of the big 4 sports

Fridaythe13thJason
02-03-2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
The blackhawks are the sorriest franchise in the sorriest of the big 4 sports

DO you think hockey is even a big 4 anymore? It seems in line with major league soccer to me.

SoxxoS
02-03-2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by UICJason
DO you think hockey is even a big 4 anymore? It seems in line with major league soccer to me.

I would agree with that. I couldn't name you the leading player in ANY statistical category right now. The Colorado avalanche are probably good and the Blackhawks are horrible, that's all I know.

mandmandm
02-03-2004, 04:33 PM
That might be just from a local perspective. In the 60's and 70's the Hawks were either the #1 or #2 team in Chicago along with the Bears.

I also think that too much expansion and the loss of Canadian teams hurt the league. Owners liked all the money they got with expansion but the Wirtzs of the world of course never put the money into the product.

Fridaythe13thJason
02-03-2004, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by mandmandm
That might be just from a local perspective. In the 60's and 70's the Hawks were either the #1 or #2 team in Chicago along with the Bears.

I also think that too much expansion and the loss of Canadian teams hurt the league. Owners liked all the money they got with expansion but the Wirtzs of the world of course never put the money into the product.

Well, its certainly a local perspective, but there is also lots of trouble with the whole league. They can't pay their players like the other sports because their viewership and attendance is poor. A new generation of children don't care at all about hockey, and its just going to get worse.

Toronto, Colorado, Detroit, and a few others are exceptions, butmost of these towns do not care at all...

Hullett_Fan
02-03-2004, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by UICJason
DO you think hockey is even a big 4 anymore? It seems in line with major league soccer to me.


IMO there's only a big 2 these days...MLB and NFL.

The NBA could fold tomorrow and I could care less. I like MLS and NHL more than NBA.

CWSGuy406
02-03-2004, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by Hullett_Fan
IMO there's only a big 2 these days...MLB and NFL.

The NBA could fold tomorrow and I could care less. I like MLS and NHL more than NBA.

NHL is much better than the NBA, and I'm a diehard Hawk fan hoping that all of this young talent they have in their system will pan out (Ruutu, Yakubov, Babchuk, Seabrook). I think a problem with the NHL is that it can't really market a player to anyone (most great hockey players are foriegn, though there are exceptions).


I really don't take much from the list. What was everyone's opinion on the new Soldier Field? I don't like the outside, but the inside is beautiful. It's awesome how loud it was in there for GB vs. the Bears. I think the ones (not liking) Soldier are saying it by the ugliness of the outside. (Don't judge a book by it's cover.)

ondafarm
02-03-2004, 07:51 PM
I want to know how the White Sox got ranked 51 st in Bang for the Buck and 60th in affordability. I think both of those are crocks.

Fenway
02-03-2004, 08:22 PM
I have one word for this

FARCE

New England Patriots 13th (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/sportsnation/franchiseBlurbs?teamId=17&sport=nfl&year=2004)

Boston Celtics 61st (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/sportsnation/franchiseBlurbs?teamId=2&sport=nba&year=2004)

Boston Bruins 89th (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/sportsnation/franchiseBlurbs?teamId=1&sport=nhl&year=2004)

Red Sox 95th (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/sportsnation/franchiseBlurbs?teamId=2&sport=mlb&year=2004)

I have no problem with the Patriots being top ranked in the Boston area, as Kraft has produced a winner, and built a new stadium, but for the Sox to finsh behind the Celtics and BRUINS????

What makes this even more absurd is they finish 22nd in MLB (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/sportsnation/franchiseRanks?sport=mlb&year=2004), behind teams like the Fighting Seaweed

The hockey situation in Chicago is simply sad. That franchise died 10 years ago when the Stadium closed.

Huisj
02-03-2004, 08:45 PM
I don't really understand the bang for the buck ranking they have. It says it's fan revenue divided by wins.

So if you have a big fan revenue and you win lots of games, you have the same number as if you have small fan revenue and don't win many games. How does this help rank anything?

Is the best bang for the buck when you have high revenue and few wins? Or is it low revenue and lots of wins? Either way this ranking doesn't make sense to me at all. A team shouldn't be happy with low revenue, nor should they be happy with low wins.

kittle42
02-03-2004, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by CWSGuy406
NHL is much better than the NBA, and I'm a diehard Hawk fan hoping that all of this young talent they have in their system will pan out (Ruutu, Yakubov, Babchuk, Seabrook).

Hawks prospects are like Sox pitching prospects.

ode to veeck
02-03-2004, 09:56 PM
you know with all the talk about the (obvious) demise of the Hawks (& hockey is NOT a dead sport!) , even on the baseball.primer Sox vs Cubs string about Soxfest ...

has anyone noticed how the Bulls are in about their worst stretch in their entire history? They've gone several years as the dregs of the league and are stinking up worse this year than last (rebuilding = devolution me thinks).

I can recall a couple of bad years between the Boerwinkle/Love/Walker/Sloan teams and then again between the A-Train (Artis) teams and the MJ arrival (remember Orlando W?), but I can't remember a stretch as bad or as long as the current rebuilding that has been going several years now, since the 6th championship team was disbanded--too bad as the Bulls have solid brand equity around the world after the 90s

again, I love the thought of 6 Sox titles, I don't think I'd care if it was followed by another 20 years of misery (or 85 for that matter)

santo=dorf
02-03-2004, 10:06 PM
How in the hell do the Cubs place in front of anyone based on the amount of championships they won (88th?)

doctor30th
02-03-2004, 10:16 PM
Thanks for posting this, I was getting low on toliet paper and needed a refill.

soxfan2425
02-03-2004, 10:21 PM
did u see that the other team owned by Jerry is 93rd

DSpivack
02-03-2004, 11:27 PM
Chicago collectively did about right; no team ranked in the top 40. This is truly sad for the nation's 3rd largest city.

We had the Bulls, but they've sucked for 6 years now.

The Blackhawks are the worst franchise in sports.

The Bears have a new stadium, but the players aren't any good.

The Cubs doop their fans year after year, with the costs attending going through the roof.

The White Sox are of the one most consistent teams in all of sports; consistently mediocre, that is.

I can't see any of these teams doing well in the near future- heck, I can't hardly see any of them making the playoffs, save possibly the Cubs and, if they're lucky, the Sox.

Chicago has the two longest championship droughts in baseball, the longest in hockey, a growing one in football [it was once thought the Bears would be back before the Patriots; haha], while in basketball a recent dynasty seems like another millenia.

The City of Big Shoulders.... Or Big Busts?

TornLabrum
02-03-2004, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by DSpivack
The City of Big Shoulders.... Or Big Busts?

Gee, I thought I might actually not hear about Janet Jackson for the rest of the evening! :D:

Fenway
02-04-2004, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by DSpivack
Chicago collectively did about right; no team ranked in the top 40. This is truly sad for the nation's 3rd largest city.


The City of Big Shoulders.... Or Big Busts?

Things could be worse, you could live in Philadelphia

KingXerxes
02-04-2004, 03:02 PM
Under the "Stadium Experience" rankings, the Bulls finished 65th, but the Blackhawks finished 120th. How?

mandmandm
02-04-2004, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Under the "Stadium Experience" rankings, the Bulls finished 65th, but the Blackhawks finished 120th. How?

My guess is full house vs. the couple thousand who continue to bend over for Mr. Wirtz.

nasox
02-04-2004, 04:01 PM
those rankings are complete garbage every year
I mean, how can you compare a NFL team to a NHL team or NBA team to a MLB team? Its like comparing apples to oranges.
Complete garbage (although I do agree that the Hawks are the worst in all of sports)
they should do separate lists for each sport.
And, IMO, I think that NASCAR is bigger than the NHL

StepsInSC
02-04-2004, 05:20 PM
I'm surprised the Braves finished so high. Not that they have bad relations, but with the steady decline in attendance since like '97...I woulda thought differently.

ode to veeck
02-04-2004, 05:58 PM
Under the "Stadium Experience" rankings, the Bulls finished 65th, but the Blackhawks finished 120th. How?

Could it be no beer after the start of the 3rd period or that the fights between fans at Hawks games just ain't what they used to be

KingXerxes
02-04-2004, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
Could it be no beer after the start of the 3rd period or that the fights between fans at Hawks games just ain't what they used to be \

LOL.