There's been a bunch of talk recently about how Boston now has a championship in all four major sports in less than a decade, and has anyone else ever done that? ( Read more... )
That's true, in terms of raw distance. But I think it's more charitable to do so for L.A., since they already have an NHL team that plays inside their city limits. In Boston's case, the Patriots are the nearest NFL franchise.
I actually included the Angels in my data collection, but it didn't change the math at all.
New York is tricky too, since half of its teams play in New Jersey. I decided not to include the Nets or Devils in the 'New York' calculations, but it turns out that doesn't change the math either.
If I thought anyone was going to dispute the concept of "the four major sports," I would have expected it to be you. I guess it's official. Soccer isn't "major."
Sadly. soccer probably won't be considered a "major" sport in this country anytime soon.
Maybe if we started calling it by the more logical name of football like the rest of the world instead of using that term for a strange game where men mostly throw and catch, or carry a ball it would pick up a bit more around here. :)
I think that post-NHL lockout, you could make the argument that soccer (MLS) is close to the NHL in terms of being the 4th largest sport. But NHL attendances are on the rise again, and MLS attendances always include stupid inflationary numbers so I don't trust them.
On the other hand, MLS has a game-of-the-week on ESPN's networks, and the NHL doesn't.
... And, actually, if you include MLS as a fifth sport, here's what it does to the numbers above:
- Detroit doesn't have an MLS team; - Boston, New York, and Philadelphia have never won (Philly only got an MLS team this year) the MLS Cup; - Chicago's Cup was in 1998, and LA won in 2002 and 2005, which doesn't change the math at all on their victory-spans.
1986 to 2010 is actually 24 years-- Chicago is the second-slowest of the six.
Not following sports, I hadn't known 1986 was the beginning of such a long drought for the Bears. I take a small vindictive pleasure in thinking that the "Superbowl Shuffle" (played pretty much hourly on Madison radio at the time) might have somehow doomed them.
in a way, it probably did, in the sense that that team was excellent and should have won more championships, but got distracted by endorsements and deals and such. that and having a quarterback made out of glass.
Comments 8
Reply
I actually included the Angels in my data collection, but it didn't change the math at all.
New York is tricky too, since half of its teams play in New Jersey. I decided not to include the Nets or Devils in the 'New York' calculations, but it turns out that doesn't change the math either.
Reply
Reply
Maybe if we started calling it by the more logical name of football like the rest of the world instead of using that term for a strange game where men mostly throw and catch, or carry a ball it would pick up a bit more around here. :)
Reply
On the other hand, MLS has a game-of-the-week on ESPN's networks, and the NHL doesn't.
... And, actually, if you include MLS as a fifth sport, here's what it does to the numbers above:
- Detroit doesn't have an MLS team;
- Boston, New York, and Philadelphia have never won (Philly only got an MLS team this year) the MLS Cup;
- Chicago's Cup was in 1998, and LA won in 2002 and 2005, which doesn't change the math at all on their victory-spans.
Reply
Not following sports, I hadn't known 1986 was the beginning of such a long drought for the Bears. I take a small vindictive pleasure in thinking that the "Superbowl Shuffle" (played pretty much hourly on Madison radio at the time) might have somehow doomed them.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment