Archive

What team with ZERO titles have the best fans?

  • newarkcatholicfan
    Fire away.
  • Skyhook79
    Utah Jazz
  • devil1197
    Skyhook79 wrote: Utah Jazz
    Yeah, their fans are pretty good.
  • Trueblue23
    The Browns, no sarcasm at all.
  • Skyhook79
    Trueblue23 wrote: The Browns, no sarcasm at all.
    The Browns have Titles.
  • Cleveland Buck
    Boulder Rape Victims
  • Strapping Young Lad
    Cavs.
  • killdeer
    prior to this season, I would have answered the Saints.
    If you refer to the modern NFL...clearly the Browns.
    I think the Jazz is a great pick in the NBA.
    I would go with the Colorado Rockies in MLB.
  • ZombieKiller
    Skyhook79 wrote:
    Trueblue23 wrote: The Browns, no sarcasm at all.
    The Browns have Titles.

    no one cares about their pee wee championships. This is the Super Bowl era and that is what counts.
  • killdeer
    Skyhook79 wrote: The Browns have Titles.
    the current generation Browns have nothing.
    the original Browns have no Super Bowl appearances, much less titles.
    If we go back to the AAFC, we might as well ask Calvin Coolidge for a vote.
    Nonetheless, if you allow for the fact that the last championship was in 1964, prior to what most would recognize as the modern NFL in the Super Bowl era, clearly Browns fans are the most rabid.
  • KnightXC1
    I would second the Jazz. They have very loyal and great fans.
  • Skyhook79
    ZombieKiller wrote:
    Skyhook79 wrote:
    Trueblue23 wrote: The Browns, no sarcasm at all.
    The Browns have Titles.

    no one cares about their pee wee championships. This is the Super Bowl era and that is what counts.
    I'm guessing Jim Brown would disagree with you and would love to be in the room if you ever said that to his face.
  • ytownfootball
    46 years is damn near a generation, it still counts but given the "Super Bowl Era" thing I'd go with the Browns too. They are (me too) a loyal bunch if nothing else.
  • Sage
    Eh, fuck the Jazz.

    Not like there is shit to do in Salt Lake (professional sports wise). If they were in, say, Miami, they wouldn't have shit for fans.
  • Heretic
    Skyhook79 wrote:
    ZombieKiller wrote:
    Skyhook79 wrote:
    Trueblue23 wrote: The Browns, no sarcasm at all.
    The Browns have Titles.

    no one cares about their pee wee championships. This is the Super Bowl era and that is what counts.
    I'm guessing Jim Brown would disagree with you and would love to be in the room if you ever said that to his face.
    I didn't realize ZK was a woman, considering that in recent times, Jim seems to prefer knocking them around.
  • ZombieKiller
    Skyhook79 wrote:
    ZombieKiller wrote:
    Skyhook79 wrote:
    Trueblue23 wrote: The Browns, no sarcasm at all.
    The Browns have Titles.

    no one cares about their pee wee championships. This is the Super Bowl era and that is what counts.
    I'm guessing Jim Brown would disagree with you and would love to be in the room if you ever said that to his face.
    I don't give a crap about Jim Brown. I would tell him straight to his face. The NFL is all about the Super Bowl era. There is never any mention of the era before that.
  • ytownfootball
    There's always mention of football pre-super bowl era. If you're naive enough to not consider it important that's a shame. Just because you don't find it relevant doesn't mean it's so.
  • killdeer
    ZombieKiller wrote:
    Skyhook79 wrote:
    ZombieKiller wrote:
    Skyhook79 wrote:
    Trueblue23 wrote: The Browns, no sarcasm at all.
    The Browns have Titles.

    no one cares about their pee wee championships. This is the Super Bowl era and that is what counts.
    I'm guessing Jim Brown would disagree with you and would love to be in the room if you ever said that to his face.
    I don't give a crap about Jim Brown. I would tell him straight to his face. The NFL is all about the Super Bowl era. There is never any mention of the era before that.
    any knowledge of Jim Brown would tell you...he was done with football by age 29, he has been a movie and cultural icon for far longer than he was a football star, and he probably could care less about defending some historical record of the Cleveland Browns. Like it or not, the modern NFL is the Super Bowl era.
  • NNN
    Well, I guess we have to rule out World Series before 1973, since the DH marks the beginning of baseball's modern era.

    Oh, and any NBA titles before 1979 have to be rejected as well...the three-point line didn't exist before that so therefore it's not real basketball.
  • dwccrew
    The Patriots......wait, do titles that you cheat your way to count?
  • ytownfootball
    kildeer, I agree about the modern era being post super bowl, that doesn't lessen the achievements of those that competed before it. And Jim Brown would seriously take issue with it I think.
  • killdeer
    NNN wrote: Well, I guess we have to rule out World Series before 1973, since the DH marks the beginning of baseball's modern era.

    Oh, and any NBA titles before 1979 have to be rejected as well...the three-point line didn't exist before that so therefore it's not real basketball.

    Ridiculous comparison.........any casual or intense fan will note that the NFL essentially ignores team records and team titles that exist prior to the AFL/NFL merge and the subsequent Super Bowl era. I am not saying I necessarily agree with that...just that it is a fact. Any football fan younger than 50 will have no working knowledge of any semblence of a Cleveland Brown championship.

    However, the only thing NNN and I may agree on is that the Nashville Predators are huge losers with absolutely no significant fan base, nor tradition, nor hope for same. I would have nominated them for the greatest loser fan base, except, of the three existing fans, you were posting on the huddle, and the other two were watching women's short program figures at the Olympics.
  • krazie45
    So do pre-BCS era college football national championships count? Or how about championships won since they decided to create the BCS Championship game instead of simply having the championship played at one of the 4 major bowl games? Under some of your logic....they do not.


    As for pre-Super Bowl championships not "counting" that's ridiculous. Do you think that during the 4th Super Bowl people were saying that those prior championships were nullified? No. Just because the name of the game changed does not mean that the Super Bowl is still not for the NFL Championship. The Super Bowl is the name of the game played for the NFL championship.


    Say for instance, MLB baseball decided that the World Series should no longer be called the World Series since the world is not involved so they move to officially re-name it the MLB Finals. The new MLB Finals would still be deciding the champion of Major League Baseball, the name would just be different. I, nor any person with any sense of logic, would not be nullifying the Yankees 28 championships because they changed the name of the series that decides the MLB champion. Therefore you cannot discredit teams that won NFL Championships because they changed the name of the game that decides the NFL champion.

    Sorry but the AFL-NFL merger argument is bullshit as well. The Super Bowl is not a game between the champion of the NFL and the champion of the AFL. The AFL no longer exists. The game is between the champions of two conferences of the NFL, the AFC and NFC. These conferences were set by the NFL. So now anyone trying to use that argument has to base it upon more teams being added....ok I can play that game too. No championships (no matter what the game is called) won before the Texans were added as an expansion team count. See how easy that was? See how ridiculous that sounds. Sorry but no one is going to be able to effectively argue against these points, and I'm sure most people are just going to side-step them.
  • UA5straightin2008
    VIKINGS!!
  • Gblock
    i hate the browns, but BROWNS