The Ultimate Standings

Steve Kuffrey · 01-21-2003, 12:54 AM

CMH · 01-21-2003, 09:40 AM

Lookin at the ratings they used I can see how the Yankees would finish 27th. That doesn't bother me.

But what does bother me is the amount of teams with no real history yet in the top 5.

Diamondbacks? Mavs? Kings? Spurs?

How are they more special than the other teams in the top 10? I mean, I understand that what the team is currently doin has a lot to do with it, but this list has no real sense of history.

How can fans say those teams give them the greatest bang for their money and love when they haven't even been playing as long as teams like the Red Wings, Eagles, A's, and Dolphins?

Maybe I'm missing the point of this survey...

OldGiants · 01-21-2003, 10:08 AM

How can Arizone rank #1 in 'championships' when the Yankees have more than five times as many WS wins as Arizona has years of existance?

If I have to name all the major league teams, say for my wife, I can rattle off 29, then it takes 5-6 minutes before I can come up with "Oh yeah, that new snake team from Phoenix"

Kezzek · 01-21-2003, 10:50 AM

Haha, N/A for the Minnesota Wild because of an N/A for "Bang for Buck" which needs 3 years of data. (They are only 2 years old.)

Looking at their rankings...even if they got a mediocre BFB rating, they'd place at or near the top. Wow!

mrskippy · 01-21-2003, 12:56 PM

The Sacramento Kings have a rich history:

http://www.nba.com/kings/history/team_history.html

Kings have consistently sold out since 1988 and have some of the best fan support in the NBA. They deserve a high ranking.

And the Dolphins have only been around since 1965, so they're younger than many NFL teams.

I think there are points given for certain things. The Diamondbacks won their championship not too long after they started. And they beat the Yanks for the first championship.

I'm sure there may be some areas where the Yanks rated less. You have to click on each team to see why they got what they got.

The Packers rating makes good sense.

mrskippy · 01-21-2003, 01:00 PM

"But Boss George followed two seasons in which other teams borrowed his trophy with price hikes on what were already the second-highest tix in the majors. Result: a surprisingly weak bang for the buck."

Also the weak stadium experience stands to reason. It probably gets a boost because its Yankee Stadium. But the place is falling apart.

The Boss ranking also hurts.

Be thankful for the coach/manager, player and championship ratings.

blubbla · 01-21-2003, 02:35 PM

Shows just how bad the Chicago situation is.

The Cubs are highest -- 82nd -- and are lucky to be there.

Then follow the Sox, Bears, Bulls, and Blackhawks.

UGH.

fantom1979 · 01-21-2003, 06:41 PM

Detroit Lions:

Overall: 115th
Bang For The Buck: 100th
Fan Relations: 113th
Ownership: 101st
Affordability: 110th
Stadium Experience: 79th
Players: 113th
Coach/Manager: 121st
Championships: 119th

Detoit Tigers:

Overall: 116th
Bang For The Buck: 111th
Fan Relations: 119th
Ownership: 105th
Affordability: 109th
Stadium Experience: 81st
Players: 120th
Coach/Manager: 81st
Championships: 75th

Not sure if I agree with this. Both the Tigers and the Lions play in brand spanking new stadiums. There is no way that there is 78 stadiums better than Ford Field and 80 stadiums better then Comerica. Neither are great, but they are better then those ratings.

Total Nirvana · 01-24-2003, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fantom1979
Detroit Lions:

Overall: 115th
Bang For The Buck: 100th
Fan Relations: 113th
Ownership: 101st
Affordability: 110th
Stadium Experience: 79th
Players: 113th
Coach/Manager: 121st
Championships: 119th

Detoit Tigers:

Overall: 116th
Bang For The Buck: 111th
Fan Relations: 119th
Ownership: 105th
Affordability: 109th
Stadium Experience: 81st
Players: 120th
Coach/Manager: 81st
Championships: 75th

Not sure if I agree with this. Both the Tigers and the Lions play in brand spanking new stadiums. There is no way that there is 78 stadiums better than Ford Field and 80 stadiums better then Comerica. Neither are great, but they are better then those ratings.

Note that the rating includes fan paticipation, how many fans come to their games, rivaries, and such. Green Bay's stadium is one of the oldest in the NFL, and it sells out just about every game. The Minnasota Wild has a new stadium, new team and such, and they sell out evey game. The team is one of the most exciting teams in the NHL. Include Mavs, Texans, Mariners and just about every other team that is in the top 50 in that ranking. They all deserve it, because

1. They fill the seats almost every game
2. The guys in the front office put out on the field an exciting team worth watching.

The Tigers is one of the worst teams in Baseball, and all they have pretty much is AAA-quality players. Thats why you only get 10,000-15,000 seats filled in Comerica Park. The Lions hasnt been in the playoffs in years, and they are just coming off a 1-15 record in the 2001 season.

fantom1979 · 01-24-2003, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Total Nirvana
The Lions hasnt been in the playoffs in years, and they are just coming off a 1-15 record in the 2001 season.

But the Lions still sell out year end and year out despite the poor performance on the field. I dont like the Lions at all, but there fans amaze me.

jmaness84 · 01-24-2003, 07:36 PM

In my opinion it is just stupid to compare different sport franchises. You cannot compare baseball, football, basketball, hockey all in one!! It is hard enough to compare baseball teams with other baseball teams. Same goes w/ football and basketball. Hey who cares about hockey?? lol

Kezzek · 01-25-2003, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jmaness84
Hey who cares about hockey?? lol

Quite a lot of people on this board. I've noticed that.

jmaness84 · 01-25-2003, 03:08 PM

Because all of the Canandians in this forum!!

Chappy · 01-25-2003, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jmaness84
Because all of the Canandians in this forum!!

I care about hockey. I've never been Canadian.

darkhorse · 01-25-2003, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jmaness84
Because all of the Canandians in this forum!!

I wonder how many Can and Do people there are on this board and how this relates to Hockey?

CMH · 01-25-2003, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by darkhorse
I wonder how many Can and Do people there are on this board and how this relates to Hockey?

and all for good reason, but Darkhorse what has gotten into you lately?

I've seen a major sarcasm alert from you in recent posts the past week.

you need a draft dodger smilie?

http://www.400softwarestudios.com/bo...ight=Sarcastic

darkhorse · 01-25-2003, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by YankeePride
and all for good reason, but Darkhorse what has gotten into you lately?

I've seen a major sarcasm alert from you in recent posts the past week.

Joe Torre would understand.

SimSportsWorld · 01-25-2003, 05:46 PM

I'm not quite sure I get this... is it based on history, or present date? It's hard to believe the most successful basketball franchise of all time (celtics), are 42nd, while the New England Patriots, who've only won 1 SB, came in 16th. Maybe I'm also missing the point of these ratings?

blubbla · 01-26-2003, 11:44 AM

I think more recent happenings carried more weight ... thus the Celtics, who haven't won a title in what will be 17 seasons, rank lower.

01-21-2003, 10:50 AM	#4
Kezzek All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Keyboard - frantically typing in subtle insults to raise my self-esteem Posts: 973	Haha, N/A for the Minnesota Wild because of an N/A for "Bang for Buck" which needs 3 years of data. (They are only 2 years old.) Looking at their rankings...even if they got a mediocre BFB rating, they'd place at or near the top. Wow! __________________ - Kez, P.E.

01-21-2003, 06:41 PM	#8
fantom1979 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 3,498	Detroit Lions: Overall: 115th Bang For The Buck: 100th Fan Relations: 113th Ownership: 101st Affordability: 110th Stadium Experience: 79th Players: 113th Coach/Manager: 121st Championships: 119th Detoit Tigers: Overall: 116th Bang For The Buck: 111th Fan Relations: 119th Ownership: 105th Affordability: 109th Stadium Experience: 81st Players: 120th Coach/Manager: 81st Championships: 75th Not sure if I agree with this. Both the Tigers and the Lions play in brand spanking new stadiums. There is no way that there is 78 stadiums better than Ford Field and 80 stadiums better then Comerica. Neither are great, but they are better then those ratings. __________________

01-21-2003, 12:54 AM	#1
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,036	The Ultimate Standings Interesting __________________ Steve Kuffrey DABS Atlanta Braves - 2008 Eastern Division Champ *DBLC Atlanta Braves - 2011, 2014 East Division Champ, 2012, 2013 NL Wildcard Baseball Maelstrom-Montreal Expos-2013 Tourney winner, 2014 WC Team Sparky's League - Tampa Bay D'Rays Epicenter Baseball League - Astros 2014 The CBL Rewind - Phillies '95

01-21-2003, 09:40 AM	#2
CMH Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5,057	Lookin at the ratings they used I can see how the Yankees would finish 27th. That doesn't bother me. But what does bother me is the amount of teams with no real history yet in the top 5. Diamondbacks? Mavs? Kings? Spurs? How are they more special than the other teams in the top 10? I mean, I understand that what the team is currently doin has a lot to do with it, but this list has no real sense of history. How can fans say those teams give them the greatest bang for their money and love when they haven't even been playing as long as teams like the Red Wings, Eagles, A's, and Dolphins? Maybe I'm missing the point of this survey...

01-21-2003, 10:08 AM	#3
OldGiants Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 211	How can Arizone rank #1 in 'championships' when the Yankees have more than five times as many WS wins as Arizona has years of existance? If I have to name all the major league teams, say for my wife, I can rattle off 29, then it takes 5-6 minutes before I can come up with "Oh yeah, that new snake team from Phoenix"

01-21-2003, 12:56 PM	#5
mrskippy All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Northern California Posts: 1,011	The Sacramento Kings have a rich history: http://www.nba.com/kings/history/team_history.html Kings have consistently sold out since 1988 and have some of the best fan support in the NBA. They deserve a high ranking. And the Dolphins have only been around since 1965, so they're younger than many NFL teams. I think there are points given for certain things. The Diamondbacks won their championship not too long after they started. And they beat the Yanks for the first championship. I'm sure there may be some areas where the Yanks rated less. You have to click on each team to see why they got what they got. The Packers rating makes good sense.

01-21-2003, 01:00 PM	#6
mrskippy All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Northern California Posts: 1,011	"But Boss George followed two seasons in which other teams borrowed his trophy with price hikes on what were already the second-highest tix in the majors. Result: a surprisingly weak bang for the buck." Also the weak stadium experience stands to reason. It probably gets a boost because its Yankee Stadium. But the place is falling apart. The Boss ranking also hurts. Be thankful for the coach/manager, player and championship ratings.

01-21-2003, 02:35 PM	#7
blubbla Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Herscher, IL Posts: 2,460	Shows just how bad the Chicago situation is. The Cubs are highest -- 82nd -- and are lucky to be there. Then follow the Sox, Bears, Bulls, and Blackhawks. UGH.

01-24-2003, 07:36 PM	#11
jmaness84 All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Georgia Posts: 1,685	In my opinion it is just stupid to compare different sport franchises. You cannot compare baseball, football, basketball, hockey all in one!! It is hard enough to compare baseball teams with other baseball teams. Same goes w/ football and basketball. Hey who cares about hockey?? lol

01-25-2003, 03:08 PM	#13
jmaness84 All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Georgia Posts: 1,685	Because all of the Canandians in this forum!!

01-25-2003, 05:46 PM	#18
SimSportsWorld Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 236	I'm not quite sure I get this... is it based on history, or present date? It's hard to believe the most successful basketball franchise of all time (celtics), are 42nd, while the New England Patriots, who've only won 1 SB, came in 16th. Maybe I'm also missing the point of these ratings?

01-26-2003, 11:44 AM	#19
blubbla Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Herscher, IL Posts: 2,460	I think more recent happenings carried more weight ... thus the Celtics, who haven't won a title in what will be 17 seasons, rank lower.