11/17/24
May 27, 2010
List: Pro Sports' Most-Losing Teams: Tampa, sad to say, is a pro sports loser. To quote Vince Lombardi "Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing." (Forbes.com - Slideshow) Bonus link: America's Most Miserable Sports Cities!
Those poor ol' Clippers, they can't even win at losing.
posted by NoMich at 06:21 AM on May 28, 2010
I'm going to come to the defense of my hometown, Tampa. The list is skewed to newer team instead of teams that have been losing for a long time. The Bucs deserve to be on there. The Rays and Lightning are newish.
posted by bperk at 08:47 AM on May 28, 2010
I agree with bperk that the list skews a bit too new to be a real representation of losing teams.
The Chicago Cubs 100 years of futility HAS to be near the top.
Even the Philadelphia Phillies need some recognition (despite recent reversal of fortune) for their DECADES of failure (1918 to 1948 without even a winning season). They'd have to win over 1000 games in a row to break even!
Leaving out my beloved Toronto Maple Leafs (43 years and counting!) also seems unusual.
posted by grum@work at 09:10 AM on May 28, 2010
Also in Tampa's defense both the Bucs and the Lightning have recent championships and the Rays came awfully close. There are many other teams that don't even remember what it is like to be playing after the regular season ends
I was also surprised Cleveland wasn't on the list for most miserable sports cities.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 09:49 AM on May 28, 2010
Leaving out my beloved Toronto Maple Leafs (43 years and counting!) also seems unusual.
Toronto's in America now?
posted by owlhouse at 10:06 AM on May 28, 2010
The losing part is from the "Pro-Sports" link, which includes the whole of the NHL.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 10:15 AM on May 28, 2010
Tampa shouldn't be on the list at all.
They've either won championships or come close in Baseball, Football and Hockey during the past 10 years.
Boston, Pittsburgh, and New York (with twice as many franchises) are the only others that can boast the same.
posted by cixelsyd at 11:01 AM on May 28, 2010
Former Tampa resident also wanting to stick up for the town. They didn't factor in the Tampa Bay Rowdies of the NASL.
For a while, that was a pretty good team. Rodney Marsh even cashed in on his massive fame and got to do some waterbed ads on local TV.
Not Jaguars or Rolexes, pfft. Waterbeds!
posted by beaverboard at 11:05 AM on May 28, 2010
You have to feel sorry for the Clipper Clappers, though. The franchise has also played in San Diego and Buffalo (Braves). That value drops even further.
posted by jjzucal at 11:33 AM on May 28, 2010
I Agree that newer teams have lower percentages due to the short time they have been around. The fact that this didnt make the list is just sad.
posted by Debo270 at 12:53 PM on May 28, 2010
As a Texas Rangers fan, I can't believe we are only 12th on the list.
Should this make me feel better?
posted by graymatters at 02:51 PM on May 28, 2010
Toronto should be included - NHL, NBA, MLB - that's more than a shitload of US cities can attest to.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:22 PM on May 28, 2010
So you want to be included in, and also try and win, a competition about which city has the losingest teams?
There's your problem right there. :-)
posted by owlhouse at 07:25 PM on May 28, 2010
Toronto should be included - NHL, NBA, MLB - that's more than a shitload of US cities can attest to.
Plus the Buffalo Bills play a "home game" in Toronto every year now. We even import losing teams!
posted by grum@work at 08:50 PM on May 28, 2010
Since our losing teams are slowly rebounding, your losing teams are only worth .96 of ours on the open market...
posted by MeatSaber at 09:38 PM on May 28, 2010
Links were taken from this article which provides a little extra insight to the qualifications used in the list.