The Gipper Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 With the SF Giants victory in the World Series one of THE most frustrated franchises in major American team sports has relieved its frustration. In all the major team sports only 4 teams of the 123 major league franchises had gone longer without winning a championship than the Giants. Unfortuneatly for the Rangers, they remain one of the most "frustrated" franchises in the major leagues. Herewith is a list of the current continuing most frustrated franchises starting with the year they last won or their year of origin if they have never won: 1908 Chicago Cubs MLB 1947 Arizona/St.L/Chicago Cardinals NFL (while in Chicago) 1948 Cleveland Indians MLB 1951 Sacramento Kings NBA (while known as Rochester Royals) **** SF/NY Giants removed themselves from this spot last night 1957 Detroit Lions NFL 1958 Atlanta Hawks NBA (while in St. Louis) 1960 Philadelphia Eagles NFL 1961 Texas Rangers no titles year of origin as Washington Senators 1961 Minnesota Vikings no titles, year of origin 1961 Tennessee Titans AFL title while known as the Houston Oilers 1962 Houston Astros no titles year of origin as "Colt 45s" 1963 San Diego Chargers AFL 1964 Cleveland Browns NFL 1965 Buffalo Bills AFL 1966 Atlanta Falcons no titles year of origin 1967 Los Angeles Kings no titles year of origin 1967 St. Louis Blues no titles year of origin 1967 Denver Nuggets no titles year of origin 1967 Toronto Maple Leafs NHL 1968 New York Jets NFL 1968 Cincinnati Bengals no titles year of origin 1968 Phoenix Suns no titles year of origin 1969 Washington National no titles year of origin as Montreal Expos 1969 San Diego Padres no titles year of origin 1969 Milwaukee Brewers no titles year of origin as Seattle Pilots 1969 Kansas City Chiefs NFL 1970 Buffalo Sabres no titles year of origin 1970 Vancouver Canucks no titles year of origin 1970 LA Clippers no titles year of origin as Buffalo Braves 1970 Cleveland Cavaliers no titles year of origin Thus all of the above teams have now gone 40 years without a title. Though just this year 3 teams that had gone 40 or more years won titles: the SF Giants, Chicago Blackhawks, New Orleans Saints took themselves off this list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Minnesota Vikings defeated the Cleveland Browns on January 4, 1970 for the NFL Championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted November 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Minnesota Vikings defeated the Cleveland Browns on January 4, 1970 for the NFL Championship. The Vikings lost the Super Bowl that year. In order to win a Championship, they have to win a Championship, not lose the Championship game. That game, plus the others that took place in those 4 shoulder years were essentially the same as the NFC/AFC Conference championship games. That is why I don't count them. Unlike, say the Browns 1964 title or the Bills 1964 titles which teams went as far as they could and won the championship game that was finally played, the Vikings did not do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 more season Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Minnesota Vikings defeated the Cleveland Browns on January 4, 1970 for the NFL Championship. Was this pre-merger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 The fat guy is every Stooler troll in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted November 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Was this pre-merger? No, the true "Merger" occurred during the 1966 season when the AFL and NFL agreed to play the Championship game known as the NFL-AFL Championship game, which about 4-5 years later became known as the Super Bowl. During a shoulder period of the 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969 seasons the AFL and NFL kept their existing formats until all details of the merger could be worked out. And during those 4 years they played those Championship games, the first two being won by the Packers over the Chiefs and Raiders and the next two won by the Jets over the Colts and Chiefs over the Vikings. So, theoretically, during those 4 years there were still "NFL Championship games" and AFL Championship games....which determined who would go on to play in the NFL/AFL Championship game. So, to me, and to just about every other historian, those games are tantamount to an NFC/AFC Championship game, which is what they became called starting with the 1970 season. What happened in 1970 is simply that 3 teams shifted from the NFC to the AFC, the Browns, Steelers, and Colts, mererly to even up the numbers on each side of the ledger. At one point it was thought that perhaps instead of these established teams moving over, the new expansion teams of the NFL i.e. the Saints and Falcons would be moved. But since these were new expansion team it was thought to best balance out the strength of the two conferences and the geography by leaving the Saints and Falcons in the NFC side. Remember, during this "shoulder" period, 4 new team were created: Dolphins, Bengals, Saints, and Falcons. Like I said, they didn't want to put all these in the AFC because they thought it was much weaker already than the NFL. That is why the Browns, Colts, Steelers shifted instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 The Vikings lost the Super Bowl that year. In order to win a Championship, they have to win a Championship, not lose the Championship game. That game, plus the others that took place in those 4 shoulder years were essentially the same as the NFC/AFC Conference championship games. That is why I don't count them. Unlike, say the Browns 1964 title or the Bills 1964 titles which teams went as far as they could and won the championship game that was finally played, the Vikings did not do that. Okay, got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEraDawg Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 No, the true "Merger" occurred during the 1966 season when the AFL and NFL agreed to play the Championship game known as the NFL-AFL Championship game, which about 4-5 years later became known as the Super Bowl. During a shoulder period of the 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969 seasons the AFL and NFL kept their existing formats until all details of the merger could be worked out. And during those 4 years they played those Championship games, the first two being won by the Packers over the Chiefs and Raiders and the next two won by the Jets over the Colts and Chiefs over the Vikings. So, theoretically, during those 4 years there were still "NFL Championship games" and AFL Championship games....which determined who would go on to play in the NFL/AFL Championship game. So, to me, and to just about every other historian, those games are tantamount to an NFC/AFC Championship game, which is what they became called starting with the 1970 season. What happened in 1970 is simply that 3 teams shifted from the NFC to the AFC, the Browns, Steelers, and Colts, mererly to even up the numbers on each side of the ledger. At one point it was thought that perhaps instead of these established teams moving over, the new expansion teams of the NFL i.e. the Saints and Falcons would be moved. But since these were new expansion team it was thought to best balance out the strength of the two conferences and the geography by leaving the Saints and Falcons in the NFC side. Remember, during this "shoulder" period, 4 new team were created: Dolphins, Bengals, Saints, and Falcons. Like I said, they didn't want to put all these in the AFC because they thought it was much weaker already than the NFL. That is why the Browns, Colts, Steelers shifted instead. Question for you Gipper : Who coined the term or phrase "Super Bowl" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 more season Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Question for you Gipper : Who coined the term or phrase "Super Bowl" Can anyone answer this? Lamar Hunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted November 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Question for you Gipper : Who coined the term or phrase "Super Bowl" Lamar Hunt. named after the hard rubber bouncy ball his kids played with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 more season Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Lamar Hunt. named after the hard rubber bouncy ball his kids played with. yah i had typed that bouncy ball part too then deleted. knew you'd want to be a one upper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted November 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Think how close some teams came to getting off this list: Cardinals came within 15-20 seconds and a decent defensive stop of winning the SB a couple of years back. The Indians were within 2 outs in 1997. The Tits/Oilers were 1 yard shy of tieing up the game against the Rams (but if they won, then the Rams would have gone nearly 60 years without a title) The Bills were a wide right FG from winning a SB in the 90s. Bengals were also a defensive stop away from winning in 1988. and maybe a few more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted November 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 yah i had typed that bouncy ball part too then deleted. knew you'd want to be a one upper. I just didn't see your post before I responded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 more season Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Think how close some teams came to getting off this list: Cardinals came within 15-20 seconds and a decent defensive stop of winning the SB a couple of years back. The Indians were within 2 outs in 1997. The Tits/Oilers were 1 yard shy of tieing up the game against the Rams (but if they won, then the Rams would have gone nearly 60 years without a title) The Bills were a wide right FG from winning a SB in the 90s. Bengals were also a defensive stop away from winning in 1988. and maybe a few more. All good examples and there is where the hope lies. That is why as much as I've said I would give up on the Browns in the past I haven't and don't think I really could. IT HAS TO HAPPEN SOMETIME! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted November 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Notice of course that from this list of franchises that have gone 40 years or more since winning a title that it is none other than: Cleveland which has the most franchises on this list with all 3 of our teams. Buffalo, Los Angeles, San Diego, Atlanta, and Phoenix have two each (but with LA and Phoenix there are transplant team where all 40 years in purgatory were not necessarily spent in that city). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.