How did the Bengals become the dirt of the league?

[RendeR]

When in fact the Cardinals have a FAR worse trrack record:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/features/story?page=overview/cardinals2004

"...This is a team that has had one winning season since 1984 (9-7 in 1998), one playoff appearance since 1982 and one playoff victory since winning the NFL title in 1947 when the team was the Chicago Cardinals."


So why is it, that even though the Bengals went to two Super Bowls and a fair number of playoff games (with wins) in their 35 year history, they still have been shafted and harassed much worse than the cardinals in the sports world's view?

[sabotai]

So why is it, that even though the Bengals went to two Super Bowls and a fair number of playoff games (with wins) in their 35 year history, they still have been shafted and harassed much worse than the cardinals in the sports world's view?

Because the Cardinals had at least a few winning seasons in the 1990's. I think the Bengals went 10 or more years without a winning season, or somethign like that (Plus a few HUGE draft blunders)

EDIT: One, the Cardninals had 1 winning season in the 90's, 1 8-8 season and 2 7-9 seasons.

[WSUCougar]

I tend to think of the Cardinals as a joke in terms of personnel moves and the draft, whereas the Bengals always seem to start the season 1-9. You think the Bengals might finally be better, and yet they never are. Until now...?

[korme]

Until now.

::happydance::

[cthomer5000]

My plight for quite some time has been to spread the message of how bad the Cardinals franchise is. They've won one playoff game in like 50 years, and only made the playoffs twice in that span.

add in the fact that they keep moving and have the stingiest owner ever and you have a recipe for shit.

[rkmsuf]

not only that the Cardinal home games feature 110 degree heat at times.


*edit that should be a promotion...come to the Cards game; we lose and you lose 10 lbs.

[JeeberD]

...and one playoff victory since winning the NFL title in 1947 ...

Ugh.

That and the Texans game are the two most embarrasing Cowboys losses that I've witnessed... :o :mad:

[Desnudo]

When in fact the Cardinals have a FAR worse trrack record:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/features/story?page=overview/cardinals2004

"...This is a team that has had one winning season since 1984 (9-7 in 1998), one playoff appearance since 1982 and one playoff victory since winning the NFL title in 1947 when the team was the Chicago Cardinals."


So why is it, that even though the Bengals went to two Super Bowls and a fair number of playoff games (with wins) in their 35 year history, they still have been shafted and harassed much worse than the cardinals in the sports world's view?
The Cardinals seem to get made fun of a lot. Maybe you see what you want to see?

[Arles]

When in fact the Cardinals have a FAR worse trrack record:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/features/story?page=overview/cardinals2004

"...This is a team that has had one winning season since 1984 (9-7 in 1998), one playoff appearance since 1982 and one playoff victory since winning the NFL title in 1947 when the team was the Chicago Cardinals."


So why is it, that even though the Bengals went to two Super Bowls and a fair number of playoff games (with wins) in their 35 year history, they still have been shafted and harassed much worse than the cardinals in the sports world's view?
Atleast the Bengals have home games. I live in Phoenix and the Cardinals haven't had a home game since 1998 :p

[Franklinnoble]

The difference is that there are people in Cincinnati that actually care about the Bungles. It's fun to watch them writhe in pain as their team blows one season after another.

The Cardinals suck, but nobody really cares. They have no fan base for those of us with good teams to pick on.

Its sort of like how everyone says the Red Sox are "cursed" because they haven't won a series in 100 years, but that's fun because there are so many BoSox faithful to torment. Who talks about the ineptitude of the Cleveland Indians lack of Series rings lately?

[Surtt]

Claming "at least were better then the Cardinals."
pretty much says it all.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I don't know. I'd rank the Lions #2 behind the Cardinals in futility. The Bengals have actually been to the Super Bowl. Twice. The Lions have won one play-off game since 1957. They have won 10 games in three years. As suckitude goes it has to be:

1. Cardinals
2. Lions
3. Bengals

Want to talk about people caring? The Silverdome, which held 80,000+ people, sold out even when the Lions sucked. Detroit will shame any football town. You have 170,000+ people in the area going to football on Saturday (Michigan/Michigan State) and then over 60,000 going on Sunday. It's no contest.

[Axxon]

Until now.

::happydance::

Have fun with it brother Shorty. I know how it felt when my Buccaneers turned the corner and it feels fantastic.

You never really know how it feels when your home team wins a super bowl, however, until it happens. It's not like when a team you like after your team is eliminated wins it. It's way way better than that.

The feeling is indescribable. :)

[judicial clerk]

"...This is a team that has had one winning season since 1984 (9-7 in 1998), one playoff appearance since 1982

I thought the Cardinals had a winning season and went to the playoffs in 1996. Tidwell caught that high floater in the endzone and took that wicked hit to beat the 'boys.

The bengals have had their share of success and they represented well in theier superbowl appearences. It is just too bad the other team had frickin joe Montana. That is bad luck.

[damnMikeBrown]

Here in Cincinnati, we made the Bengals the dirt of the league the old fashioned way. We earrrrned it.

[Wolfpack]

I agree with the sentiment that no one really cares about the Cards. They've been so bad for so long that it's almost like there's just 31 teams in the league. Having an absolute idiot for an owner doesn't help the respect department much, either. (The Clippers in the NBA are equivalent, and the Blackhawks in the NHL are rapidly heading in that direction from what I've read)

[Mantle2600]

Its sort of like how everyone says the Red Sox are "cursed" because they haven't won a series in 100 years, but that's fun because there are so many BoSox faithful to torment. Who talks about the ineptitude of the Cleveland Indians lack of Series rings lately?

Are you saying the Indians have crappy fans?

[scooper]

Are you saying the Indians have crappy fans?
I think they do. They built one heck of a team around the opening of the Jake, combine the two and the fans up there became rabid. And that fan base began to seep down through the state, where before there was almost a border running through the middle of Columbus with Indians fans north and Reds fans south. In fact, there were more Reds fans up north, I would guess at that time than Indians fans south.

Fast forward to the 90's when all we heard down here was how great, rabid and loyal the Indians fans were due to all those sell-outs. When in reality, only a few years sooner, their crowds more closely resembled the early crowds in Major League. Now that the Indians suck, those Randy Quaid beating on a tom tom crowds are back. So in reality, Indians fans are fair weathered like most of baseball.

Then again, the Reds have the best record in the NL and are only averaging around 24,000 right now. A lot of people here are really jaded by ownership and management and last year's major fire sale.

[Mantle2600]

Well lets see, the Yankees are the most "storied" franchise in baseball history, yet they couldnt sell out a game if it was to save the team, unless of course they were in the playoffs, go figure. Then theres the Braves, but I wont go there, we all know about them. Marlins win a world series, yet no one still comes. Boston does not sell out every game, no one does, but we did, over 400 straight times, in an average market, they begin to stink and some people stop coming, fine, it separates the true fans from the ones on the bandwagon. No one ever sells out all there games. period. except for us for 6 years.

[scooper]

I'll admit it was quite a feat to sell out for six years. That's great. But the conception was that Cleveland has these great die-hard fans to the point where they were saturating the entire state. No they don't. They have plenty of die-hard fans but those sell out crowds were due to one hell of a lot of bandwagoners. It became a cool thing to be an Indian fan in the 90's. Now that the team's bad, the crowds are much much smaller. I'm not slamming Cleveland. That's the way baseball fans are pretty much everywhere but at Wrigley. It's just that they don't have the rabid core fan base in Cleveland that was portrayed while they were winning.

For the record, if I lived in Cleveland, I would have probably been part of those sell outs and I would still go to games. The Jake is just a great place for a game with a lot to do around the stadium and good public transit making it easy to get there. IN comparison, I've only been to one game this year of the first place Reds. While Great American is a very nice park, the surrounding area is just not that much fun and getting to and from the park is not that easy.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

I'm just surprised that the name of Mike Brown has not been brought up.

[Mantle2600]

Well there are some fickle fans in Cleveland, I will admit, but thats everywhere, some places more than others. But there is a very serious fan base here, we also sell out all the Browns games too, even when there record would be on par with the Bengals. But I totally disagree that we have bad fans. I can name ten cities with worse fans. Hell, look at the NY Giants, they booed Eli when the Chargers drafted him, and we all know its cause they wanted him, then an hour later he was a giant, and the fans were left looking like total jack asses in my opinion. Thats what I cant stand, those kind of fans.

And I 'd have to say that the reason noo one talks about the indians not winning a WS ring in 50 years is because there are teams who have gone longer, Redsox, Whitesox, cubs, hell when was the last time the Giants won a WS ring, when they beat us in '54?

[SplitPersonality1]

Dedicated fans? Just look to Green Bay. The following article is two years old, but I think you will see my point. Keep in mind that the streak they are talking about continued through the late 70s and early 80s with some very, very bad Packer teams.

*********************

Toughest Ticket In The NFL

Entering 2002, Lambeau Field has been sold out on a season-ticket basis 42 straight years, for 278 consecutive non-strike games (62 preseason, 205 regular season and 11 postseason), beginning with the 1960 opener vs. the Chicago Bears.

The current waiting list is more than 57,000; the Packers tell fans adding their names that the wait averages 30 years.

Nearly 28,000 Packer season-ticket accounts represent 47 states and the District of Columbia (all but Vermont, Rhode Island and West Virginia). The top five states are Wisconsin (24,896 accounts), Illinois (959), Michigan (492), Minnesota (289) and Florida (184). The team also has four accounts in Canada, four in Alaska and three in Hawaii.

The renovation removed about 800 names from the waiting list in 2002, with a further reduction in the coming year.

Also in 2003, 4,000 tickets per game will be available to Brown County residents (non season-ticket holders).

The 14 NFL Teams With Season-Ticket Waiting Lists

Team Number of Names Year Wait Stadium Sellout Streak
Green Bay 57,000 30 42 years (1960)
Washington 51,000 20 36 years (1966)
New England 50,000 25-30 Eight years (1994)
Tampa Bay 40,000 20-25 Four years (1998)
Denver 20,000 10-15 32 years (1970)
N.Y. Giants 19,000 10-15 26 years (1976)
Kansas City 17,000 2 10 years (1992)
N.Y. Jets 17,000 10-15 26 years (1976)
San Francisco 16,000 2-4 21 years (1981)
Chicago 10,000 5-10 18 years (1984)
Philadelphia 6,000 5-10 Eight years (1994)
Detroit 3,200 2-3 One year (2001)
Tennessee 2,200 5-10 Three years (1999)
Minnesota 1,600 2 Three years (1999)

[Surtt]

I liked Green Bay until I had to work with one of their "Fans."

[scooper]

Mantle, I never said Cleveland had bad fans. My argument was that it is not the solid, dedicated, rabid fan base that it was made out to be in the 90's. At least from a baseball point of view. Every city has many fans that only come out in good times. Cleveland's string in the 90's was due largely to this. I'm not saying they are any worse than anywhere else. I'm saying they are not really any different than most other places.

As for the Browns, during some of the leaner years in the 80's and 90's, Municipal Stadium most certainly did NOT sell out. But the support since the team has returned has been excellent.

[ISiddiqui]

WAIT! There is pro football in Arizona?! :eek:

Of course that is the reason that Cincy is made the most fun of, because people actually care about the Bengals while the Cardinals are quickly forgotten. The Lions used to have Barry Sanders a few years back so they get a minor pass.