Houston coming in at a respectable but not that great 23 for winning percentage. I didnt realize the Rockets were the only winning team in Houston overall. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=070411statwinners 23. HOUSTON | Record: 5,267-5,272-5 (.500) Teams: • NFL: Texans (2002-2007): 24-56-0, Oilers (1966-1996): 206-253-5 • NBA: Rockets (1972-2007): 1,458-1,380 • MLB: Astros /Colt .45s (1962-2007): 3,579-3,583 The really crappy part is that dallas beat us.....
The real crappy part is that the Mavs are still an overall losers with a losing record and have never won a single championship
I think that's r****ded. To qualify, you have to have atleast 3 teams. In that case, I would get me a team and play one game, and then fold. We would win that game and finish 1.000. Greatest city ever.
5. MONTREAL | Record: 5,773-4,968-915 (.537) Teams: • NHL: Canadiens (1926-2007): 2,776-1,760-831-32-3, Maroons (1926-1938): 242-230-84-0-0 • MLB: Expos (1969-2004): 2,755-2,943 Whoo.
Montreal is No.5!Yes! I miss the Expos,why did they have to move? And Canadiens miss the playoffs this year.I hope the Rockets go all the way in the palyoffs,otherwise this will be a long boring summer for me. Go Rockets!
AFL Champions (pre 1966): (2) 1960, 1961 AFL Championship Games (Pre-1966): (3) 1960, 1961, 1962 AFL/AFC Championship Games: (3) 1967, 1978, 1979 Division Champions: (6) 1960, 1961, 1962, 1967, 1991, 1993 Playoff Appearences: (14) 1960, 1961, 1962, 1967, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 I started watching the Oilers with my Dad from their very first season. We went to the games and had a blast! We all wish they could have made it to the Super Bowl, but they did win the first 2 AFL championships, and if you were a fan from the beginning, it was really a thrill. I remember seeing George Blanda kick the first 50 yard field goal in professional football. Blanda and Billy Cannon. Man, Blanda was a trip for years. Awesome quarterback. Adams was always a nightmare as an owner, firing coaches left and right from the beginning of the franchise. Bum had a longer tenure than just about anyone, but was fired as well at a ludicrous time, of course. I really miss the team. The Texans are like vanilla extract beside tabasco sauce when compared to the Oilers. Win or lose, the Oilers were never a dull moment. Why I don't have an ulcer from that era is a mystery, but I miss them.
I really think Dallas should be lower. Since the Rangers are the Texas Rangers and their stadium is in Arlington, this study makes the Rangers part of Arlington. Everyone knows there is no way that franchise is there without the big D. Then it gets a little inconsistent. The New England Patriots who dont have Boston in their name and have a stadium in Foxborough, Mass. are included as a Boston team. The Rangers 2,676-2,858 would def. knock them down lower.
That's because for some insane reason they included Irving in Dallas but not Arlington. They itemized the suburbs to make Dallas look good.
That is exactly my point. Despite the Cowboys playing in Arlington, they will still be considered a Dallas team. This study doesn't include the Rangers as a Dallas team and yet they would include the Patriots as a Boston team. Does that not seem inconsistent? They should include the Rangers as a Dallas team and that would lower Dallas in the standings.
Arlington and the Texas Rangers actually made it on the loser's list. Nevermind, you are right, I would add them with Dallas
^ That does seem odd that Arlington isn't considered part of Dallas when Foxborough is part of Boston. For that matter during the Vikings glory years of the Mid-70's they didn't play in Minneapolis but in Bloomington, same with the Twins and Northstars.
