What team with ZERO titles have the best fans?

• Heretic

  

  With the overall argument that is concerning the Browns and titles...as a Steelers fan.
  
  I honestly have no issue with their fans bringing up NFL Championships from the 50s/60s. They were NFL titles and regardless of the number of teams back then, deserve respect. I don't hear people saying Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb and Lou Gehrig sucked because there were fewer baseball teams and non-whites couldn't play back in their day.
  
  The only issue I'd have would be with those fans who consider those championships they won in that secondary league they were in before it dissolved and they were in the minority of teams allowed to join the NFL as on the same level. The way I look at things is that the NFL is the NFL and is the dominant pro football league. NFL championships, regardless of era, are the elite ones and other championships are on a lower level.
• NNN

  

  killdeer wrote: 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.

  Except for the fact that the NFL most certainly does not ignore team records or titles prior to the merger, your first point might hold water.
  
  As for the age of anyone who would remember a Cleveland title, what's your point? I don't remember anyone in 2004 saying "The Red Sox have never won a championship since no one under age 90 remembers it happening".
  
  To your second point, nowhere in that idiotic rambling did anything that you posted make a shred of sense. I was a Vancouver fan from the time I first started following the NHL (1987) through the 2006-07 season, at which point I switched over to Columbus. My avatar is Murray Bannerman's legendary kabuki mask...Bannerman played with Chicago. Before that was Gary Bromley's skull mask...and he played with Vancouver at the time.
  
  So basically, you're 0 for 3. Congratulations on being mediocre.
  

  krazie45 wrote: 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. Any championships (no matter what the game is called) won before the Texans were added as an expansion team counts. 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.

  Here are the titles that would actually count for anything.
  
  NFL/APFL season-ending championship (no playoffs) - 1920-1932
  NFL champions - 1933-1969
  AAFC champions - 1946-1949
  AFL champions - 1960-69
  NFL champion (Super Bowl) - 1970-present
  
  What's often overlooked is that the first four Super Bowls were for nothing but bragging rights; it was an exhibition between the NFL and AFL champions. If the NFL had refused to play the game in 1968 and 1969, everyone would remember Baltimore and Minnesota as the champions just as surely as Green Bay in 1961, 1962, and 1965.
  
  The AAFC and AFL championships would still count because the NFL basically absorbed those two leagues, which is also why the USFL wouldn't count, the CFL wouldn't count, and the AFL of 1926 wouldn't count.
• KnightXC1

  

  Sage wrote: 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.

  Eh, if the Browns were in, say, Boise Idaho, they wouldn't have any fans either. Sheesh
• KR1245

  

  Browns and its not even close
• Al Bundy

  I'm not sure we define zero as being not in x number of years. They are two different concepts. However, if we want to use that definition, Chicago Cubs fans have to be up there.
• NOL fan

  Cincinnati Reds, Pittsburgh Pirates and Detroit Tigers
• Scarlet_Fever

  

  NOL fan wrote: Cincinnati Reds, Pittsburgh Pirates and Detroit Tigers

  Cincinnati Reds??? I know it's been 20 years this fall (which is why I think Reds will win it all this year) but they have a title or two.
• 2kool4skool

  

  Skyhook79 wrote: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.

  Yeah, his wife told me he has a mean right hook.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Scarlet_Fever wrote:

  NOL fan wrote: Cincinnati Reds, Pittsburgh Pirates and Detroit Tigers

  Cincinnati Reds??? I know it's been 20 years this fall (which is why I think Reds will win it all this year) but they have a title or two.

  Doesn't matter. It was a different game 20 years ago. Really, if you haven't won a title in the past year then you have never won one.
• Al Bundy

  Scarlet_Fever wrote:

  NOL fan wrote: Cincinnati Reds, Pittsburgh Pirates and Detroit Tigers

  Cincinnati Reds??? I know it's been 20 years this fall (which is why I think Reds will win it all this year) but they have a title or two.

  Almost every team mentioned on this poll has won titles. People are just picking random dates when the sports began counting. NOL fan happened to pick some year after 1990. Some posters have picked some years after 1966 or 1970. Eveyone is just picking random years, so why not after 1990?
• Al Capone

  Cleveland is one of the few cities that even qualifies. 3 major sports teams and no championship since when? What a joke. And I agree, titles before the superbowl dont mean shit.
• krazie45

  

  Yep, looks like I was right about the side-stepping
• NOL fan

  Al Bundy wrote:

  Scarlet_Fever wrote:

  NOL fan wrote: Cincinnati Reds, Pittsburgh Pirates and Detroit Tigers

  Cincinnati Reds??? I know it's been 20 years this fall (which is why I think Reds will win it all this year) but they have a title or two.

  Almost every team mentioned on this poll has won titles. People are just picking random dates when the sports began counting. NOL fan happened to pick some year after 1990. Some posters have picked some years after 1966 or 1970. Eveyone is just picking random years, so why not after 1990?

  exactly. I went with 1994 because the wild card era is what counts and no one cares about pee wee titles won before then
  
  It was to make a point
• Scarlet_Fever

  

  Hey I am the first person to get on Browns fans for not having won (edit: or even been to the Superbowl since the Bengals have never won either) a Superbowl. Well the did they just did it as the Ravens . However, the thread states titles not Superbowls. The Browns did win titles even if there were only two teams in the league.
• NOL fan

  Scarlet_Fever wrote: However, the thread states titles not Superbowls.

  yep. It said ZERO titles. Not no titles since a certain date deemed by random people.
  
  So the Browns, Lions, Cardinals (football), Indians, Cubs, or any other team that has won a title should not be on this list
  
  we should be talking about teams like the Cavs, Bengals, Blue Jackets, Mariners, Brewers, Jazz, Blues, Falcons, Rangers (baseball), Padres, Astros, etc
• skank

  

  Why do you people even respond to some of newarkcatholicfans idiotic baiting threads?
• newarkcatholicfan

  

  SOME OF YOU JUST LOVE TO TURN ON EACH OTHER NO MATTER WHAT THE TOPIC AT HAND IS.