Actually, Chicago is #4 on their list, just ahead of #5 Boston and just behind #3 Buffalo. I will be rather pissed if it turns out to be New York ("whaaaa, the Mets suck") or LA ("whaaaa, we lost our football teams to towns that actually support them").
Posted by Jeem at July 12, 2004 02:43 PMD'oh! Chicago is #4. Not sure how I missed that.
Yeah, New York isn't entitled to whine about jack, given the presence of the Yanks. And three straight NBA titles in the last five years, plus a World Series title down the road in Anaheim, ought to move LA well down the list, if they'd be there at all. LA fans are too laid-back about the Dodgers to be "tortured."
Cleveland's not on the list yet. Got to be Cleveland.
Posted by Carl at July 12, 2004 03:25 PMOooh, yeah, Cleveland is a good pick - they lost 2 football teams (Rams then Browns), the Indians haven't won a World Series in ages, and the Cavs are perennial also-rans in the NBA.
I could make an argument for St. Louis, too, but that'd be too jingoistic. Also, we've been to 2 of the last 5 Super Bowls, won one, and nearly won the other, so we can't complain too much.
Posted by Jeem at July 12, 2004 04:01 PMHold on a minute! If Cleveland is #1 on the list of Loser Cities and Philly's #2, then that means Philly is the #1 loser, right? Since Cleveland wins the #1 slot, Philly (once again) loses....ergo Philly's #2 placement makes it the #1 loser.
Posted by Dar Kozinul at July 15, 2004 04:02 PM