Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Cleveland Pro Sports Ownership


BaconHound

Recommended Posts

Not so sure about that. I mean....the Cavs have been in the Finals 3 straight years. The Indians went to extra innings in game 7 of the WS. The Browns....well....lets say that I think they are improving and seem to have a plan.

 

NYC teams like the Knicks, Nets, Jets have some pretty shitty owners.

San Diego used to have 3 major league teams....now it has one....and that one has been consistently crappy (Padres). I guess you can say how shitty is the ownership in a town....where that town no longer has 2 of its teams? I think that is the proof in the pudding.

I guess, bottom line is the issue of winning. Can a team that is consistently losing still be considered to have good ownership? A lot of owners have a different unit of measurement than perhaps you and I have: we measure wins. A lot of them just measure the money they make, regardless of actual winning on the field. Some bad owners from a winning/success on the field point of view still make piles of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the worst in pro sports.

 

For a true small market team, recently eh maybe not THAT bad. 1960s trader Gabe's Indians? That was pathetic coming off the best Indians win percentage decade ever!

 

Like the Gipper said NY, NY and all their money and built in fan bases NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL might be bigger underachievers or just chokers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so sure about that. I mean....the Cavs have been in the Finals 3 straight years. The Indians went to extra innings in game 7 of the WS. The Browns....well....lets say that I think they are improving and seem to have a plan.

 

NYC teams like the Knicks, Nets, Jets have some pretty shitty owners.

San Diego used to have 3 major league teams....now it has one....and that one has been consistently crappy (Padres). I guess you can say how shitty is the ownership in a town....where that town no longer has 2 of its teams? I think that is the proof in the pudding.

I guess, bottom line is the issue of winning. Can a team that is consistently losing still be considered to have good ownership? A lot of owners have a different unit of measurement than perhaps you and I have: we measure wins. A lot of them just measure the money they make, regardless of actual winning on the field. Some bad owners from a winning/success on the field point of view still make piles of money.

 

 

Yeah I could see how NYC would be in the discussion Jets, Nets, Mets and Knicks make very questionable moves. Yanks and Giants have been very successful in terms of winning and trying to win. I never really considered San Diego a real sports town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the worst in pro sports.

 

I'm an idiot for responding to this thread that is not worthy of a response! Go root for another city, state or country....just not Ohio please.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fucking hate the Steelers but do envy their ownership and ability to sustain a stable franchise for the better part of 45 years

But they really sucked ay it the first 37 years...meanwhile the BROWNS won it all year 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they really sucked ay it the first 37 years...meanwhile the BROWNS won it all year 1.

 

 

Unfortunately at 41 I wasn't invested in those teams. I blame my dad for enjoying the good times and leaving me with this tire fire :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately at 41 I wasn't invested in those teams. I blame my dad for enjoying the good times and leaving me with this tire fire :wacko:

Yeah we older boomers have some great BROWNS football memories....... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...