I was having this conversation with friends recently and I thought it would make excellent fodder for BBI.
The question is about which NY Franchise in it's History,is the Best,which is the worst.
All four major Sports rank em in order.
Please consider the entire length that the team is in existence and base how good it is relative to the league it's in...
For me its
1-Yankees far and away the top with 27 championships
the next 7 are more challenging to rank.
2-Giants,hard to believe, but it is the 2nd best NY Franchise,8 Championships in it's 100 years or so.
3-Islanders are next with 4 cups since 1972...they moved down from 2 to 3 in the last decade or so.
Here is where it gets difficult, but this is my opinion.
4-KNICKS-holy crap they are this high??
5-RANGERS-not many championships but they have bouts with relevance.
6-METS 2 titles and many enough pennants to keep out of the basement
7-NETS-1 ABA title
8-JETS -1 Super Bowl
Thoughts
1. Yankees
2. Football Giants (how pathetic is that?)
3. Rangers
4. Mets
5. Knicks
6. Jets
It isn't like we're the Lions or something historically.
I’m a Nets fan, so take that for what it’s worth, but the Nets have an ABA title, and we’re 2x NBA finalists. I think that puts them ahead of the Jets, although an admittedly low bar.
I think I would put the Devils 3rd. The Islanders run was amazing, but it was also over 40 years ago. Recency should add some weight, IMO.
Quote:
what about the Devils? 3 cups and 2 other finals appearances isn’t too shabby.
I think I would put the Devils 3rd. The Islanders run was amazing, but it was also over 40 years ago. Recency should add some weight, IMO.
1. Yankees
2. Giants
3. Devils
4. Islanders
5. Rangers
6. Knicks
7. Mets
8. Jets
9. Nets
Quote:
In comment 16528732 Section331 said:
Quote:
what about the Devils? 3 cups and 2 other finals appearances isn’t too shabby.
I think I would put the Devils 3rd. The Islanders run was amazing, but it was also over 40 years ago. Recency should add some weight, IMO.
1. Yankees
2. Giants
3. Devils
4. Islanders
5. Rangers
6. Knicks
7. Mets
8. Jets
9. Nets
Agree but not a NY team....
Quote:
In comment 16528735 Section331 said:
Quote:
In comment 16528732 Section331 said:
Quote:
what about the Devils? 3 cups and 2 other finals appearances isn’t too shabby.
I think I would put the Devils 3rd. The Islanders run was amazing, but it was also over 40 years ago. Recency should add some weight, IMO.
1. Yankees
2. Giants
3. Devils
4. Islanders
5. Rangers
6. Knicks
7. Mets
8. Jets
9. Nets
Agree but not a NY team....
So Giants & Jets off the list too?
Quote:
In comment 16528735 Section331 said:
Quote:
In comment 16528732 Section331 said:
Quote:
what about the Devils? 3 cups and 2 other finals appearances isn’t too shabby.
I think I would put the Devils 3rd. The Islanders run was amazing, but it was also over 40 years ago. Recency should add some weight, IMO.
1. Yankees
2. Giants
3. Devils
4. Islanders
5. Rangers
6. Knicks
7. Mets
8. Jets
9. Nets
Agree but not a NY team....
What do you mean by NY team? State? City? If it's state, you forgot the bills. If it's NYC only, then the islanders shouldn't be on the list either. And you can argue if it's NYC then the Giants or Jets shouldn't be on that list either.
It's a lot easier to just say NYC Metro area. I think there is general consensus that NYC area teams is 2 NFL, 2 MLB, 2 NBA, and 3 NHL. The devils play just as close to NYC as the Giants and Jets.
3 who cares
Quote:
In comment 16528732 Section331 said:
Quote:
what about the Devils? 3 cups and 2 other finals appearances isn’t too shabby.
I think I would put the Devils 3rd. The Islanders run was amazing, but it was also over 40 years ago. Recency should add some weight, IMO.
1. Yankees
2. Giants
3. Devils
4. Islanders
5. Rangers
6. Knicks
7. Mets
8. Jets
9. Nets
I put the Devils right before the Jets.
1. Yankees (121 years / 27 championships - 22%)
2. Giants (100 years / 8 championships - 8%)
3. Islanders (52 years / 4 championships - 7.7%)
4. Devils (42 years / 3 championships - 7.1%)
5. Rangers (98 years / 4 championship - 4%)
6. Mets (62 years / 2 championships - 3%)
7. Knicks (78 years / 2 championships - 2.5%)
8. New Jersey Nets (12 years / 0 championships - 0%)
You can argue fan base, relevance, city connection or any other intangible you like to raise your favorites, but this is an objective measure of success as a team in their given league.
If you want to include the Bills and Sabres , just put them at the end , tied for last with 0%.
1. Yankees (121 years / 27 championships - 22%)
2. Giants (100 years / 8 championships - 8%)
3. Islanders (52 years / 4 championships - 7.7%)
4. Devils (42 years / 3 championships - 7.1%)
5. Rangers (98 years / 4 championship - 4%)
6. Mets (62 years / 2 championships - 3%)
7. Knicks (78 years / 2 championships - 2.5%)
8. New Jersey Nets (12 years / 0 championships - 0%)
You can argue fan base, relevance, city connection or any other intangible you like to raise your favorites, but this is an objective measure of success as a team in their given league.
Are a part of it,but it also how relevant a team is in those years and eras in between
Take the Mets, they only have 2 chips but have had frequent playoff runs and World series appearances.
Quote:
In comment 16528735 Section331 said:
Quote:
In comment 16528732 Section331 said:
Quote:
what about the Devils? 3 cups and 2 other finals appearances isn’t too shabby.
I think I would put the Devils 3rd. The Islanders run was amazing, but it was also over 40 years ago. Recency should add some weight, IMO.
1. Yankees
2. Giants
3. Devils
4. Islanders
5. Rangers
6. Knicks
7. Mets
8. Jets
9. Nets
I put the Devils right before the Jets.
The Devils have more championships than you have brain cells.
By the same token, I have zero idea how OP put the pathetic fucking Knicks over the Rangers. Bouts of relevance? The Rangers have won the second most playoff games in the NHL behind the Lightning in the last 10 years. They won the Presidents Trophy and reached the ECF in 2011 as well.
Zero chance the Knicks are a "better" franchise than the Rangers. Makes me feel like OP doesn't actually watch all the sports of the franchises he's trying to rank.
By the same token, I have zero idea how OP put the pathetic fucking Knicks over the Rangers. Bouts of relevance? The Rangers have won the second most playoff games in the NHL behind the Lightning in the last 10 years. They won the Presidents Trophy and reached the ECF in 2011 as well.
Zero chance the Knicks are a "better" franchise than the Rangers. Makes me feel like OP doesn't actually watch all the sports of the franchises he's trying to rank.
I'm calling BS...talk what you know bro
A bit pissy this morning after gaging yet another Cup run away....
Quote:
and the Devils *should* be higher than the Rangers if the criteria is team success.
By the same token, I have zero idea how OP put the pathetic fucking Knicks over the Rangers. Bouts of relevance? The Rangers have won the second most playoff games in the NHL behind the Lightning in the last 10 years. They won the Presidents Trophy and reached the ECF in 2011 as well.
Zero chance the Knicks are a "better" franchise than the Rangers. Makes me feel like OP doesn't actually watch all the sports of the franchises he's trying to rank.
I'm calling BS...talk what you know bro
A bit pissy this morning after gaging yet another Cup run away....
fucking laughably stupid to try and claim their anywhere in the same stratosphere as the rangers (or devils for that matter). i legitimately think the mets have been more successful than knicks. got to the world series in 2000 and 2015 at least.
Totally agree. The knicks are New York Cities ONLY team. The Yankees are marketed to men who wear boat shoes, have a house in LBI, and watch Forbes Sports money for pleasure.
I'm not sure what boat shoes and LBI have to do with anything (other than some people's perpetual foolishness), but they clearly have nothing to with this topic.
Specifically said because of nothing they've done on the court.
Most teams cannot suck for three decades and sell out the building anyway.
So yes, in terms of actual success the Knicks are at the bottom, but in terms of relevancy within NY they're up there with the Yankees.
Quote:
They haven't won anything since the fucking 70's. Buy a clue.
Specifically said because of nothing they've done on the court.
Most teams cannot suck for three decades and sell out the building anyway.
So yes, in terms of actual success the Knicks are at the bottom, but in terms of relevancy within NY they're up there with the Yankees.
"Relevancy" Is a team "relevant" if they've been trash for around 20 years and haven't won in 50 years?
Ya, it's much easier to get people in a foreign city to go to the same bar to watch a team no one else likes than when Yankee fans can go into any sports bar and the Yankees will be on if they're playing
Is it's not only championships/yrs in league.
its how relevant is the team and does the team consistently win
Or are they habitually bad/poorly run
Quote:
In comment 16529261 Dave in Hoboken said:
Quote:
They haven't won anything since the fucking 70's. Buy a clue.
Specifically said because of nothing they've done on the court.
Most teams cannot suck for three decades and sell out the building anyway.
So yes, in terms of actual success the Knicks are at the bottom, but in terms of relevancy within NY they're up there with the Yankees.
"Relevancy" Is a team "relevant" if they've been trash for around 20 years and haven't won in 50 years?
In the case of the Knicks I'd say yes, at least socially relevant within NYC.
Quote:
In comment 16529273 Scooter185 said:
Quote:
In comment 16529261 Dave in Hoboken said:
Quote:
They haven't won anything since the fucking 70's. Buy a clue.
Specifically said because of nothing they've done on the court.
Most teams cannot suck for three decades and sell out the building anyway.
So yes, in terms of actual success the Knicks are at the bottom, but in terms of relevancy within NY they're up there with the Yankees.
"Relevancy" Is a team "relevant" if they've been trash for around 20 years and haven't won in 50 years?
In the case of the Knicks I'd say yes, at least socially relevant within NYC.
This thread isn't just about relevance in NYC, it's also about consistency. The Knicks have been consistently bad until very recently. So, that settles that.
If your measure of "relevance" is finding a bar where fans are watching their team, you're always going to find more relevance for out-of-town teams. Yankees fans can watch the team at home, or at the stadium, or spread out among ALL the bars in NYC in little groups of two, three, four people.
Out-of-town fans tend to congregate all in the same bar where they know they can get the bartender to put on their remotely-located team and they can sit around with their fellow fans and watch. This is often the way that out-of-town fans follow their teams, because it can be pricy to access your teams' broadcasts when you're not in market.
That's not an especially complicated concept. A little common sense goes a long way.
Says you. But you have the intelligence of a toad, so no one cares.
Quote:
Should not be mentioned. Not NY at all!! You could argue jets/Giants but they were for many years. Devils NEVER!
Says you. But you have the intelligence of a toad, so no one cares.
Are they the New York Devils? The poster asked for New York Teams. Nice comment by the way. A complete Jackass as usual.
Being a native nyer and lifetime Knicks fan...I can tell you there is nothing like the buzz the Knicks bring when we are winning. EVERYONE talks about it,the taxi drivers, doormen everyone!!!
Quote:
In comment 16529295 Carl in CT said:
Quote:
Should not be mentioned. Not NY at all!! You could argue jets/Giants but they were for many years. Devils NEVER!
Says you. But you have the intelligence of a toad, so no one cares.
Are they the New York Devils? The poster asked for New York Teams. Nice comment by the way. A complete Jackass as usual.
That's what you're basing it on? Do you have any sense of what a metropolitan area represents? If you're hung up on "New York" being in the team's name, are the Nets the New York Nets (anymore, or any time in the past 47 years)? If you're hung up on the team representing NYC, were the Islanders a NYC team when they started? Are they now? Is it just about playing in New York state for you? If so, how are you including the Giants or Jets? How are you excluding the Bills and the Sabres?
As usual, your miniature brain is incapable of anything more nuanced than "derrrrr, do dey have 'new york' in duh name?"
Better disqualify the Yanks for starting in Baltimore before moving to NYC.
They should be included.
Quote:
Kansas City, Colorado and New Jersey qualifies the team as New York.
Better disqualify the Yanks for starting in Baltimore before moving to NYC.
Officially those franchises are not connected
Quote:
In comment 16529275 Dave in Hoboken said:
Quote:
In comment 16529273 Scooter185 said:
Quote:
In comment 16529261 Dave in Hoboken said:
Quote:
They haven't won anything since the fucking 70's. Buy a clue.
Specifically said because of nothing they've done on the court.
Most teams cannot suck for three decades and sell out the building anyway.
So yes, in terms of actual success the Knicks are at the bottom, but in terms of relevancy within NY they're up there with the Yankees.
"Relevancy" Is a team "relevant" if they've been trash for around 20 years and haven't won in 50 years?
In the case of the Knicks I'd say yes, at least socially relevant within NYC.
This thread isn't just about relevance in NYC, it's also about consistency. The Knicks have been consistently bad until very recently. So, that settles that.
AROCK clarified his intent after my initial post saying I'd put the Knicks 2 based on their high profile in NYC despite the on court woes.
Winning, consistentcy, etc being the criteria knocks them down tremendously. We agree on that
Oh, well, in that case!
See above about nuance.