Forget The Bronx Is Burning... Is The Entire New York Market Burning?

[CH David]

For some of the teams, this is true. This is not at all true for a team like the Yankees.

Hence why the Yankees went last.

They should have won in 2006 (no disrespect Blue Cardinal, but the Mets were a better team, and got beat, it happens). Since then they choked at the end of the year, and got injured last year. Before that, they were in the 2000 series, were in the 1999 NLCS. No, they don't have a rich history, but they have a decent history.

Decent doesn't isn't a good enough reason for people to want to go to the team does it? I mentioned the World Series in 2000.

While I agree with you that they had been consistently pretty good, if they didn't win Super Bowl 42, no one would be saying that, because that is the only year they have done anything in the playoffs.

It's all about what have you done for me lately. They beat the Patriots to end their undefeated streak for said Super Bowl. But you know this.

You have no clue what you're talking about. The Jets were one of the best teams in football in 1998, when they lost in the AFC Championship Game to the Broncos after having a halftime lead. They were serious contenders for the Super Bowl that year. They also had good teams in 1986 (lost in the Division round) and 1982 (lost in the Conference Championship). And the bullshit line about the Kicker is just that. Most kickers have the most points for their team. Why do you think the all-time points leaders in the NFL are all kickers? And the Jets had a great D in 68 (thanks to D-Line coach Buddy Ryan), which is why they won.

Oh my bad. So they had good teams in '82, '86, and '98 before last year. Woohoo. Other than last year, what was their claim to fame the past 10-12 years? Making the playoffs to get booted? Herm Edwards "You play to win the game" speech? Like I said above, it is all about what have you done for me now. Before last year I couldn't consider them the best option to win a championship.

Before the past 10 years they were far, far, far, far, far from a joke. They appeared in 2 NBA Finals in the 90's (99 and 94), losing in 7 games in both.

Yet the '90s were dominated by Jordan and the Bulls. Also they haven't won a championship since the '70s. Come on Trooper. Since Ewing left the team has been shit, and now they are just throwing money at players like Amare. They are not a go-to team anymore.

This is true. Not the best chance to win a cup, but they had been a playoff team every year coming out of the Lockout (until this past season).

Arguments were best chances to win and have a fun life outside the stadium. Glad you see my point.

They had a pretty good team in the early 90's, making a conference final. But they had not been relevant in the past 15 years. They have managed to keep the team afloat while being shit on by Long Island/Town of Hempstead (where the stadium is). That alone is pretty friggin outstanding.

Early 90's is still anywhere from 16-19 years ago. They may still be able to keep the team there, but they are not a destination that I want to go for a championship, because it won't happen unless they turn it around.

Not can be argued. It is fact. The Yankees give a player the best chance to win, because they are in the playoffs every year (something no other team can claim).

Well, except that 2008 season.

But yes, the Yankees are the New York franchise. Wouldn't even try to argue that.

You forgot the Devils/Nets. It's 3 out of 9. The Devils are a GREAT organization, winning 3 cups in 15 years and being a constant threat in the postseason. The Nets have sucked for a while, but they did have 2 finals appearances in the past 10 years.

Technically I count them as New Jersey, since it's their name. However, if you want to go 3-9 that just makes the numbers worse for New York. The Devils definitely are a great organization. One of my favorites outside the Hawks. But the Nets, even while making the Finals twice, it was early in the '00 decade. They are not the go-to destination. So 2-7 or 3-9, still not that good Trooper.

 

[Tenta]

First off, I want to say that I have not read any of the other posts besides the OP. To be honest, it was just too much for me to read right now and I apologize if my post has already been done.

All good, no worries. Your's is the first post I'm going to take on, because I see you're from the city, and want to get an eye's view. Then, it'll be S_F, Stinger, and though Stormy has taken on to debating Chi, I'll take him

Lets start with the Yankees. I'll admit that players dont join the Yankees to be a Yankee, but it certainly isnt all about the money. The money plays a big role of course, but a lot of it has to do with winning. The Yankees win and there is no denying it. Players come to the Yankees to win championships. I dont see how you can say they arent the crown jewel of New York. They are probably the most famous sports team in the world. The Yankees alone are enough to keep the New York market alive.

Is one team enough to keep a market alive? I'm personally not sure, but that said, I get what you're saying. The Yankees are so good, because their revenue stream is so high. They can afford to overpay players. Again, it's not so much that it's New York, it's their cable deal, one in which makes them billions. So we see here, not a Yankees thing, but more of a YES network thing

Next, there are the Knicks. Yeah, they suck. Their struggles are probably why I dont like basketball. But if you are going to choose a place like L.A as the new big market, then you have to look at the Clippers as the Knicks of L.A. Every city has a bad team and the Knicks are New York's.

But see, that'd be good if the New York had a market with a good team, but they don't. LA has the Lakers, and people go to play with them. Hell, more good players are even willing to go to the Clips a la Baron Davis. The proof is there, that more good players aren't being drawn to New York

Then there are the two football teams. The Giants have a Super Bowl win in the last 5 years and the Jets are one of the most exciting teams right now. They get better and better and show a lot of potential to have a bright future. So to keep score, thats 2 out of 3 sports that New York is doing well in.

I hate to say it, because it will make me sound like such a homer. That said, The Giants had no business winning that Super Bowl. That was supposed to be the Coronation of the League's new undefeated team, The Patriots. Yes, the Giants outplayed them that game, but over the course of the season, who was the better team? That's right, The Patriots. Then, the Jets, who have inconsistency, in that they just can't bring themselves to even half the achievement they accomplish the previous year. And again, there is the fact that free agents are not coming to New York, they aren't going to the Giants or Jets.

Finally, lets look at hockey. Oh, those Rangers. I dont even know what to say for them. But the Islanders are getting better through drafts and have the pieces to put together something good. And if you are going to look at the Nets, you have to look at the Devils, who are a perennial playoff team, constantly towards the top in the standings, and have won 3 Stanley Cups in the last 15 years.

I don't know if I want to include either. Sure, the New York market talks about them, but really, they're not New York teams. Aside from hearing Devils games from time to time in WFAN, New Jersey just isn't talked about much, at least in the New York area. That said, The Devils are a team that just don't seem to get over the hump, at all. They get close, but are much like the Braves in thew 90s, in that they don't get over the hump.

All in all, when you compare the teams in top markets like Florida, L.A, and Boston with New York, no one else has as many successful teams.

Not exactly true here, as plenty of states have the same amount of good teams, with less chances

Florida has the Heat

And the Magic and Dolphins. I could also count The Gators, but that seems ticky tacky

L.A has the Lakers and maybe the Dodgers,

As well as the Angels. Even the freaking Kings can be good

and Boston has the Celtics, Red Sox, and Patriots.

And the Bruins, who people absolutely love.

Aside from that? Atlanta has the Hawks, Falcons, and Braves, all of which are now playoff teams. Minnesota has the Twins and Vikings, as well as the Wild. Chicago has the White Sox, the Bulls, and potentially the Bears, where free agents have proven to want to go to. Plenty of markets are becoming better than New York. New York is no longer the consumate sports town.

Ok, I shall deal with S_F next. Be back in an hour, probably

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Rangers? An Original Six team which is history there. They spend money, that's why players go there. They have been considered threats for the Cup the a few times the past few years, but fell before the Conference Finals. Not the best chance compared to other teams in the league.

False. The Rangers were only considered a threat for the cup in 2007 when they signed both Chris Drury and Scott Gomez, as they still had NHL power house Jaromir Jágr at the time. They haven't made the Conference Finals since the late 90's when Gretzky was still playing for us.

Finally, lets look at hockey. Oh, those Rangers. I dont even know what to say for them. But the Islanders are getting better through drafts and have the pieces to put together something good. And if you are going to look at the Nets, you have to look at the Devils, who are a perennial playoff team, constantly towards the top in the standings, and have won 3 Stanley Cups in the last 15 years.

False. The Rangers' farm system is currently ranked third in the NHL by the ISS and Central Scouting. The Islanders are a middle of the pack team in that respect.

The Devils have also failed to surpass the second round of the playoffs every year since their last cup win, and twice now have tried rekindling past flames to no avail. Jason Arnott will go the same route as Bobby Holik, Brendan Shanahan and Brian Rolston – bank on it.

i seen the majority of the posts, but havent made it threw all of them, but i have noticed that everyone keeps saying the "2 NY hockey teams" but everyone seems to forget that NY actually has 3 teams in the NHL.

Buffalo Sabers anyone?

The Sabres do not sign free agents, or rarely do, and certainly never sign major market free agents, as they operate on an internal cap budget. They are known for being one of the most frugal and cheap teams in the NHL, because the economic market in Buffalo is very blue collar. When the job market fails, so too do Sabres season ticket sales.

now i wont go into the other sports, as i dont watch much basketball or baseball, and only started watching NFL just a few years ago, but from a Hockey standpoint, both the Rangers and Islanders have lost their flair. the Salary Cap hurt the rangers. BAD. they use to be that one team that could afford all the biggest names, but after the Cap, they really couldnt do that anymore, and what have they done since then? nooot a lot.

Made the playoffs four straight years and have drafted their way to being recognized as having the third highest potential farm system roster in the NHL. Not a lot? Debatable.

and the Islanders? well they were one of the 2 big teams in the 80's, no doubt about it. but since the year 2000, the NY islanders have been one of the shittiest teams in the NHL, and one of the biggest Jokes as well. how long did it take them to get a win this season?

Correct.

the Sabers are the one NY team that seems to have some hope at the moment, and they dont get as much exposure, mostly due to the fact that most people forget that they ARE a NY team. there's my thought on it anyway

Not true – they don't get exposure because they are a dwindling market that relies heavily on their own internal economic community to survive. When things in Buffalo get bleak, so too do the Sabres.

 

[CH David]

False. The Rangers were only considered a threat for the cup in 2007 when they signed both Chris Drury and Scott Gomez, as they still had NHL power house Jaromir Jágr at the time. They haven't made the Conference Finals since the late 90's when Gretzky was still playing for us.

You realize this doesn't help your argument of New York is the destination to go, right? If your team isn't considered a threat to win the championship, why the hell should I want to go there? This helps to show that people only go to New York because of money. 2-7 teams can be considered for their best chance to win. All the others haven't been the best chance in 10 years, minus last year's Jets. Money talks.

 

[Hazardous]

The Sabres do not sign free agents, or rarely do, and certainly never sign major market free agents, as they operate on an internal cap budget. They are known for being one of the most frugal and cheap teams in the NHL, because the economic market in Buffalo is very blue collar. When the job market fails, so too do Sabres season ticket sales.

Made the playoffs four straight years and have drafted their way to being recognized as having the third highest potential farm system roster in the NHL. Not a lot? Debatable.

Not true – they don't get exposure because they are a dwindling market that relies heavily on their own internal economic community to survive. When things in Buffalo get bleak, so too do the Sabres.

glad you agreed on the Islanders part at least. but yes, having a great Farm team Roster works great.. as long as they are used right. Take the Canucks for example. i mean, im from Vancouver (but i can not stand them) and they do have a good farm team, they bring in some great talent, but they are not used that well, and end up being traded (funny how many former canucks ended up in NY) take the former captain for example. Markus Naslund. in Van, he will go down as one of the best Captains ever. sure he didnt lead the team to much success, but they got further under him then anyone else, but then he goes to the rangers, and does what exactly? there is a big joke out here that NY is the graveyard for players. where they go when they want to retire. now i cant really talk much, as im a Red Wings fan, and thats been said about them as well, but they have success doing it. have been for many many years now.
Simply making the playoffs is not enough, look at teams such as the Flyers. made the playoffs like 13 years straight or something like that, 13 of the last 14, but they havent WON the cup since the 70's (i could be wrong on that.. but think it was their first year) but yet the two big markets are the Rangers, and the Maple Leafs, teams who have not won the cup in over a decade, or in the leafs case 2 or 3 now. Why are they the big ones? because they get the most media coverage.
As for the Free Agents, look at the Wings, yes they do sign players, such as Modano, or Bertuzzi, but they are well known for MAKING stars. Franzen, Zetterburg, Yzerman. people who other teams didnt want, Wings took them, and they became great players. simply signing Free agent big names isnt enough either, you need the perfect balance. like the Penguins, or Blackhawks.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

You realize this doesn't help your argument of New York is the destination to go, right? If your team isn't considered a threat to win the championship, why the hell should I want to go there? This helps to show that people only go to New York because of money. 2-7 teams can be considered for their best chance to win. All the others haven't been the best chance in 10 years, minus last year's Jets. Money talks.

Actually, it does. Money is a reason to come to this market, and so long as money is here, this market is operating in the black, not the red.

glad you agreed on the Islanders part at least. but yes, having a great Farm team Roster works great.. as long as they are used right. Take the Canucks for example. i mean, im from Vancouver (but i can not stand them) and they do have a good farm team, they bring in some great talent, but they are not used that well, and end up being traded (funny how many former canucks ended up in NY) take the former captain for example. Markus Naslund. in Van, he will go down as one of the best Captains ever. sure he didnt lead the team to much success, but they got further under him then anyone else, but then he goes to the rangers, and does what exactly?

Put up average numbers for a $4M price tag and retired when he felt he wasn't capable of playing at the level required of him. A-OK with me. I for one was very happy to see Näzzy here before he rode off into the sunset.

there is a big joke out here that NY is the graveyard for players. where they go when they want to retire. now i cant really talk much, as im a Red Wings fan, and thats been said about them as well, but they have success doing it. have been for many many years now.

Sure, because the Rangers employed the wrong tactics with it. The way the game works is you draft young talent and supplement holes in your roster with free agents. The Rangers, for years, did it backwards by signing impact players and trying to supplement holes in their roster with young talent – didn't work, and they learned, just like every other team who's done this has or will.

Simply making the playoffs is not enough, look at teams such as the Flyers. made the playoffs like 13 years straight or something like that, 13 of the last 14, but they haent WON the cup since the 70's (i could be wrong on that.. but think it was their first year) but yet the two big markets are the Rangers, and the Maple Leafs, teams who have not won the cup in over a decade, or in the leafs case 2 or 3 now. Why are they the big ones? because they get the most media coverage.

And they get the most media coverage because they are hockey hot beds and markets that operate in the black, not the red. Again, this does nothing to disprove the idea that New York is a great market to play in.

As for the Free Agents, look at the Wings, yes they do sign players, such as Modano, or Bertuzzi, but they are well known for MAKING stars. Franzen, Zetterburg, Yzerman. people who other teams didnt want, Wings took them, and they became great players. simply signing Free agent big names isnt enough either, you need the perfect balance. like the Penguins, or Blackhawks.

Correct.

 

[Stormtrooper]

Decent doesn't isn't a good enough reason for people to want to go to the team does it? I mentioned the World Series in 2000.

Hence why I didn't completely disagree with you. I was simply saying they have a better history then you were giving them credit for. They owned the city during the 80's.

It's all about what have you done for me lately. They beat the Patriots to end their undefeated streak for said Super Bowl. But you know this.

Damn right I know it. So does Guy, Tenta(I think he's a pats fan) and all the other Pats fans. But that being said, what they have done lately is get embarrassed last year to not make the playoffs, and lose again in their first playoff game. Just like they did every year except for 2000 and 2007. Tom Coughlin was on the hot seat during 2007, because they couldn't do anything in the playoffs. Since 1998, the Jets have 5 playoff wins. The Giants have 6.

Oh my bad. So they had good teams in '82, '86, and '98 before last year. Woohoo. Other than last year, what was their claim to fame the past 10-12 years? Making the playoffs to get booted? Herm Edwards "You play to win the game" speech? Like I said above, it is all about what have you done for me now. Before last year I couldn't consider them the best option to win a championship.

No, they also had pretty good teams in 2004 (won a playoff game), 2002 (annihilated the Colts in a home playoff game), 2001 and 2006 (went to the playoffs). And if it's about what have you done for me now, the Jets have done more for their fans now then all but 3 teams (Vikes/Colts/Saints). They made the Conference Championship, AND brought in big-time players in the offseason.

Yet the '90s were dominated by Jordan and the Bulls. Also they haven't won a championship since the '70s. Come on Trooper. Since Ewing left the team has been shit, and now they are just throwing money at players like Amare. They are not a go-to team anymore.

Yep, the 90's were dominated by Jordan, and the 2nd best team in the East during that time was the New York Knickerbockers. They can't help that the greatest of all time kept them out of the finals. I didn't disagree about the team being shit. I just said they were GREAT int he 90's. That's a fact.

Early 90's is still anywhere from 16-19 years ago. They may still be able to keep the team there, but they are not a destination that I want to go for a championship, because it won't happen unless they turn it around.

I know, I was just saying that they are BEGINNING to rebound.

Well, except that 2008 season.

But yes, the Yankees are the New York franchise. Wouldn't even try to argue that.

Yeppers, and 2008 was the first time since 1993 the Yankees didn't make the playoffs.

Technically I count them as New Jersey, since it's their name. However, if you want to go 3-9 that just makes the numbers worse for New York. The Devils definitely are a great organization. One of my favorites outside the Hawks. But the Nets, even while making the Finals twice, it was early in the '00 decade. They are not the go-to destination. So 2-7 or 3-9, still not that good Trooper.

Umm, you're math is way, WAY wrong.
2/7 = 0.28571428571428571428571428571429
3/9 = 0.33333333333333333333333333333333
0.33333333333333333333333333333333 > 0.28571428571428571428571428571429
Therefore, 3/9 > 2/7.

And as I've said, the Jets and Mets deserve more consideration then you're giving them. The Jets should make it 4/9, and the Mets or Rangers should make it 4.5/9. That would make them .500, which is really good for any market.

And this "dead" market has been able to support 9 teams for 30 years (Devils moved to New Jersey in 1983, making it 9 teams). It's dead alright. Dead as a living thing. But yeah, the market is failing.

 

[Mr. Truth]

I'm from Jersey, so I'll get that bias out of the way. Now, onto the topic at hand.

Look at CC Sabathia. He didn't necessarily want to be a Yankee, they just overpaid grotesquely to make him a Yankee. Even now, we're seeing teams rise up to challenge the Yankees massive payroll. The Sox and The Phillies have already rivaling the Yankees in terms of spending, and even teams like the Rays and the San Franciso Giants are proving you don't need an exhorbinant payroll to be competitive. So if you're going to talk about the Yankees, you should talk about how much revenue they've been able to have since starting up their own Network. Players no longer sign with the Yankees because they idolize the Yankees, like in the 50s and 60s when teams could sign free agent contracts out of college.

Yes, the Yankees have the most money to spend in baseball, but paying people the most isn't what lures players to them. Looking at Sabathia, there are two reasons I believe took precedence over money that brought him to the Bronx. The first being the obvious one, winning championships. Within the past 5/6 years the Yankees have focused more on the farm system, and haven't made as many poor free agent signings. This has made them the odds-on favorite to win the World Series every single year. Many players want to play meaningful games, and athletes love to win. The allure of a ring is enough to bring a player in. The second reason people sign with the Yankees (speaking mostly in terms of top-tier free agents) is security. Looking back at Sabathia again, he was traded during the final year of his previous contract after spending the first 7 or so years of his career in Cleveland. Moving is tough on a player who has a family and children, and the security of knowing that, in Sabathia's case, he'd be in New York for the next 7 years is comforting.

See, I've been looking at the New York Knicks, and to some extent the Nets, and the fans in which have believed they were really in the running for names like LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Joe Johnson, and even now, think they're in the running for Chris Paul, Carmelo Anthony, and the like. And it leaves me to believe, shit, New York fans are a little delusional. Those who grew up in NY, and love it, and it's the only thing they know, of course they're going to love New York. That said, they also expect that everyone in the country wakes up every morning, thinking "God I gotta live in New York."

I'm not a basketball fan, but I do follow the sport a little during the winter lull. Knicks fans were delusional. They haven't been a good team for quite some time, and the front office hasn't done much to turn the team around. There was about zero chance of LeBron signing in New York. The difference between playing there, and playing anywhere else is that the Knicks have more people in suits and ties at their games. Nets fans weren't as delusional. They have a new owner with international reach and more money than any of us could dream of. They have a terrific young center in Brook Lopez to build the team around. If LeBron chose Jersey, he would have had the chance to be an international icon. At least one other top free agent (probably Bosh) would have signed in Jersey with him, and the Nets would have become the comeback team of the decade. While it was still a low probability of that happening, it wasn't a crazy idea.

Look, someone argue with me, here. Does the New York Market need to be pronounced mostly dead? Is it not half the free agent, and for that matter, player market it used to be? Has cable killed off New York's viability as a major market in sports, at least in players wanting to play there?

Is it not true that, in terms of a sports entity, not only is New York no longer a powerhouse, the way they used to be... Are they not even pretty damn useless to most player's conscience?

Overall, I agree with you that New York is no longer the powerhouse in sports it was in the past. With the exception of the Yankees (maybe the Jets if they win the Super Bowl this year), there really isn't a team in New York that people want to play for. The Mets? Horrible manager, horrible GM, and I feel horrible for the fans. The Knicks? Bad for years. The Nets? Just had one of the worst years in the history of American professional sports. The Giants? Inconsistent. The Jets? On the rise, but have yet to prove themselves. Don't know as much about hockey, but I do know that the Islanders and Rangers haven't been that good in some time and the Devils don't have a team that can win the Cup. So yes, New York really is no longer the city to be. The allure is gone. The marketing advantage is gone. It's on par with any other major sports city.

 

[Megatron]

Damn right I know it. So does Guy, Tenta(I think he's a pats fan) and all the other Pats fans. But that being said, what they have done lately is get embarrassed last year to not make the playoffs, and lose again in their first playoff game. Just like they did every year except for 2000 and 2007. Tom Coughlin was on the hot seat during 2007, because they couldn't do anything in the playoffs. Since 1998, the Jets have 5 playoff wins. The Giants have 6.

Giants have a ring, though. The Jets haven't even MADE a Super Bowl since their win back in 1969. Consistently failing in the playoffs isn't something to brag about.

No, they also had pretty good teams in 2004 (won a playoff game), 2002 (annihilated the Colts in a home playoff game), 2001 and 2006 (went to the playoffs). And if it's about what have you done for me now, the Jets have done more for their fans now then all but 3 teams (Vikes/Colts/Saints). They made the Conference Championship, AND brought in big-time players in the offseason.

But did they ever make a SB? No. And 'what have you done for me now' means more like in the past decade. And there's been a shitload of teams that have done more for their fans then the Jets.

Yep, the 90's were dominated by Jordan, and the 2nd best team in the East during that time was the New York Knickerbockers. They can't help that the greatest of all time kept them out of the finals. I didn't disagree about the team being shit. I just said they were GREAT int he 90's. That's a fact.

Great = winning championships. Knicks of 90's = didn't win championships. Good = making playoffs, being contenders. Knicks of 90's = good.

And as I've said, the Jets and Mets deserve more consideration then you're giving them. The Jets should make it 4/9, and the Mets or Rangers should make it 4.5/9. That would make them .500, which is really good for any market.

How much success has any of the three of them had in the past decade? As in winning conference championships and making it to the finals? 1 by the Mets right at the beggining, 0 for both the Jets/Rangers. If you're really going by that logic of 'making playoffs but always failing (except for Yankees and Giants) = great', then there's shitload of cities that have been more successful in the past decade.

And this "dead" market has been able to support 9 teams for 30 years (Devils moved to New Jersey in 1983, making it 9 teams). It's dead alright. Dead as a living thing. But yeah, the market is failing.

Don't understand why everyone's counting NJ if they aren't gonna count Buffalo. Buffalo actually IS in the state of NY.

 

[The Holy One]

I will admit as an Atlanta sports fan that this post will have some bias opinion.

While I won't go as far as say that it's officially dead, I will back Senior Truth and say that the "allure" of New York has greatly diminished in the last decade. The only teams that players actually go to for a reason besides money is the Yankees and yes, the Jets but only for winning. The players don't go to New York sports teams anymore just for the nostalgia factor even if that's what most of them say. There either going for the big bucks or to win and that can be said for only 2 or 3 teams. New York is no longer the flashy destination that it's once was as Tenta said before, why go to freezing, crowded New York when you can go to warm, exciting Miami, Los Angelos, or Atlanta? Now that's not to say it's not still a big market, but it's no longer the powerhouse that it once was.

To be honest, I don't see NY ever having that grand status again. Unless the Knicks rewind back to the 1990s and somehow Stoudemire channels Patrick Ewing in him, they won't be relevant anytime soon and I hardly doubt Melo or Paul will come to play when teams such as the Magic, Clippers, and Nets (btw I'm not including NJ in this topic) will have much better enticing offers. The Mets will continue to underachieve and disappoint with any big free agent signing they will get. The Giants may have a good year but it will most likely be followed by a mediocre one as they have been accostomed to in the past 10 years. Never watched much hockey but from what I can tell, the Rangers are much like the Mets, big promise with attention grabbing FAs but disappoint in the end. The Islanders (I like that name) are a long way to rebuilding before they resemble something of the 80s. I might as well throw in the Bills and Sabres who will continue to be hurt by their small outside generated income and may leave for other cities sometime in the next few years. So, as I have said, I don't believe the New York market is dead but it's no way near the juggernaut that it once was.

 

[The People's Peep]

Is one team enough to keep a market alive? I'm personally not sure, but that said, I get what you're saying. The Yankees are so good, because their revenue stream is so high. They can afford to overpay players. Again, it's not so much that it's New York, it's their cable deal, one in which makes them billions. So we see here, not a Yankees thing, but more of a YES network thing

But thats just running a good business. In a sport with no salary cap, you want to have the most money you can have. The Steinbrenners saw a great opportunity to make money with their own network and it paid off because it helps them get the players they need to win. And thats what they do. Win. Its made them one of the most famous teams in the world in one of the most famous cities in the world. When you add that to the 27 championships, it makes for a team that can carry a whole market.

But see, that'd be good if the New York had a market with a good team, but they don't. LA has the Lakers, and people go to play with them.

Touche. I guess a better example would be to compare them to Florida and hockey. The Panthers and Lightning are both bad. No good team there. Instead, I'll look at it as sports and not teams. Every city has their week sport and basketball is New York's.

Hell, more good players are even willing to go to the Clips a la Baron Davis. The proof is there, that more good players aren't being drawn to New York

Amare to the Knicks. L.A is Baron Davis's hometown so that played a huge role in his signing. Honestly, I dont think players go to play for a city anymore. They go for the team and the money. Championships and winning drive players decisions today. It explains why the Knicks dont get big name players and why players are attracted to the Lakers. Why players play for the Yankees and not the Cubs. The city plays a very little role in their decisions.

I hate to say it, because it will make me sound like such a homer. That said, The Giants had no business winning that Super Bowl. That was supposed to be the Coronation of the League's new undefeated team, The Patriots. Yes, the Giants outplayed them that game, but over the course of the season, who was the better team? That's right, The Patriots. Then, the Jets, who have inconsistency, in that they just can't bring themselves to even half the achievement they accomplish the previous year. And again, there is the fact that free agents are not coming to New York, they aren't going to the Giants or Jets.

Bart Scott to the Jets last year, LT and Jason Taylor coming this year. In a sport like football, big players dont normally become free agents. They are usually locked up with a team or traded. When you look at it like that, those are two big names coming to New York. But like I just said, players dont care about the city as much as they used to. Its all about winning and money and thats why they came to New York. The Jets are the most talked about team and they have high expectations. You cant say they are not a good team when you have those two things.

I don't know if I want to include either. Sure, the New York market talks about them, but really, they're not New York teams. Aside from hearing Devils games from time to time in WFAN, New Jersey just isn't talked about much, at least in the New York area. That said, The Devils are a team that just don't seem to get over the hump, at all. They get close, but are much like the Braves in thew 90s, in that they don't get over the hump.

Well, there are plenty of Devils fans in NY. They get talked about in newspapers and are part the new New York/ESPN site. I've lived in NY my whole life. I live 20 minutes away from Nassau Coliseum and I'm a Devils fan. They have their place in NY. Also, if you want to look at players coming to New York, look at Ilya Kovalchuk. Sure the contract didnt pass, but he still had full intention of signing with the team. Also, it fits with my theory about coming for winning and money. He got his money and the Devils make the playoffs every year but just need that one missing piece. You cant tell me he mainly came here because he likes Newark.

And the Magic and Dolphins. I could also count The Gators, but that seems ticky tacky

As well as the Angels. Even the freaking Kings can be good

I feel like the Angels are on the decline

And the Bruins, who people absolutely love.

Aside from that? Atlanta has the Hawks, Falcons, and Braves, all of which are now playoff teams. Minnesota has the Twins and Vikings, as well as the Wild. Chicago has the White Sox, the Bulls, and potentially the Bears, where free agents have proven to want to go to. Plenty of markets are becoming better than New York. New York is no longer the consumate sports town.

I'll address all this together. Ok, other markets have good teams and have their fan bases. Other markets are rising but New York is still the one to beat. I havent been to any other big market, but I know New York and its all sports, all the time. And I'm sure other markets are the same. But New York is the center of attention. The teams are always being talked about. Other teams are always second to the New York teams. The perception to others like you might be that its declining, but its just that others are getting better.

 

[Stormtrooper]

Giants have a ring, though. The Jets haven't even MADE a Super Bowl since their win back in 1969. Consistently failing in the playoffs isn't something to brag about.

But did they ever make a SB? No. And 'what have you done for me now' means more like in the past decade. And there's been a shitload of teams that have done more for their fans then the Jets.

The Jets since 2000:
4 playoff wins, 7 winning seasons

Teams the Jets have had a better decade then:
1. Arizona Cardinals (2 winning seasons, 3 playoff wins).
2. Atlanta Falcons (4 winning seasons, 2 playoff wins)
3. Buffalo Bills (nothing, they suck)
4. Carolina Panthers (3 winning seasons, 1 SB loss)
5. Chicago Bears (2 playoff wins, 4 winning seasons)
6. Cleveland Browns (nothing, they suck)
7. Dallas Cowboys (1 playoff win)
8. Denver Broncos (1 playoff win)
9. Detroit Lions (nothing, they suck)
10. Houston Texans (1 winning season since inception in 2002)
11. Jacksonville Jaguars (1 playoff win, 3 winning seasons)
12. Kansas City Chiefs (0 playoff wins, 3 winning seasons)
13. Maimi Dolphins (1 playoff win in 2000, 6 winning seasons)
14. Oakland Raiders (1 SB loss, 4 playoff wins none since 2002)
15. San Fransisco 49ers (2 playoff appearances, 1 win, none since 2002)
16. San Diego Chargers (3 playoff wins, 2 playoff losses to the JETS)
17. St. Louis Rams (3 playoff wins, 3 winning seasons)
18. Tennessee Titans (2 playoff wins, 5 winning seasons)
19. Washington Redskins (2 winning seasons, 1 playoff win)

Teams the Jets are on par with:
1. Green Bay Packers (Jets have more playoff wins, same number of Conference Championship games)
2. Minnesota Vikings (3 playoff wins, 5 winning seasons)
3. Seattle Seahawks (4 playoff wins, 1 SB loss)
4. Tampa Bay Bucanneers (nothing since winning the Super Bowl in 2002)

Teams better then the Jets:
1. Baltimore Ravens (barely. excluding 2000, they are the same as the Jets)
2. Indianapolis Colts
3. New England Patriots
4. New Orleans Saints (only because of this past season)
5. New York Giants
Philadelphia Eagles (the only non-Super Bowl winning team better then the Jets)
6. Pittsburgh Steelers

As I said, the Jets are in the top 10 (OK, top 11). I win. Good day sir.

Great = winning championships. Knicks of 90's = didn't win championships. Good = making playoffs, being contenders. Knicks of 90's = good.

No. The Knicks were GREAT during the 90's. They made the playoffs EVERY year in the decade, making 2 finals appearances (losses in 7 and 5 games), and losing to Jordan 4 of his 6 championships. They could very well have been the 2nd best team in the decade.

How much success has any of the three of them had in the past decade? As in winning conference championships and making it to the finals? 1 by the Mets right at the beggining, 0 for both the Jets/Rangers. If you're really going by that logic of 'making playoffs but always failing (except for Yankees and Giants) = great', then there's shitload of cities that have been more successful in the past decade.

as I stated in the beginning of my post, that is not the case, in the NFL at least. And at the end of the day, I'd rather have consistent winning over a decade like the Jets, then a 1 and done deal like the Raiders, Rams, Seahawks, etc.

Don't understand why everyone's counting NJ if they aren't gonna count Buffalo. Buffalo actually IS in the state of NY.

very simple. The question has nothing to do with the state of New York. The New York market is the New York Metropolitan Area, which includes Manhattan, Long Island, and Northeast New Jersey (where the Devils, Nets, Giants, and Jets are, a whopping 8 miles from Manhattan).

 

[Megatron]

The Jets since 2000:
4 playoff wins, 7 winning seasons

Teams the Jets have had a better decade then:
1. Arizona Cardinals (2 winning seasons, 3 playoff wins).
2. Atlanta Falcons (4 winning seasons, 2 playoff wins)
3. Buffalo Bills (nothing, they suck)
4. Carolina Panthers (3 winning seasons, 1 SB loss)
5. Chicago Bears (2 playoff wins, 4 winning seasons)
6. Cleveland Browns (nothing, they suck)
7. Dallas Cowboys (1 playoff win)
8. Denver Broncos (1 playoff win)
9. Detroit Lions (nothing, they suck)
10. Houston Texans (1 winning season since inception in 2002)
11. Jacksonville Jaguars (1 playoff win, 3 winning seasons)
12. Kansas City Chiefs (0 playoff wins, 3 winning seasons)
13. Maimi Dolphins (1 playoff win in 2000, 6 winning seasons)
14. Oakland Raiders (1 SB loss, 4 playoff wins none since 2002)
15. San Fransisco 49ers (2 playoff appearances, 1 win, none since 2002)
16. San Diego Chargers (3 playoff wins, 2 playoff losses to the JETS)
17. St. Louis Rams (3 playoff wins, 3 winning seasons)
18. Tennessee Titans (2 playoff wins, 5 winning seasons)
19. Washington Redskins (2 winning seasons, 1 playoff win)

Teams the Jets are on par with:
1. Green Bay Packers (Jets have more playoff wins, same number of Conference Championship games)
2. Minnesota Vikings (3 playoff wins, 5 winning seasons)
3. Seattle Seahawks (4 playoff wins, 1 SB loss)
4. Tampa Bay Bucanneers (nothing since winning the Super Bowl in 2002)

Teams better then the Jets:
1. Baltimore Ravens (barely. excluding 2000, they are the same as the Jets)
2. Indianapolis Colts
3. New England Patriots
4. New Orleans Saints (only because of this past season)
5. New York Giants
Philadelphia Eagles (the only non-Super Bowl winning team better then the Jets)
6. Pittsburgh Steelers

As I said, the Jets are in the top 10 (OK, top 11). I win. Good day sir.

I'd throw the Chargers above the Jets as well. Both have only made 1 CC and they've been better in the regular season and have been just as successful in the playoffs. Either way, including the Chargers or not, the Jets aren't in the top 1/3 of the league. SO how do you win when there are at least 11 teams that've been more successful then the Jets? You enjoy middle of the pack? Ok.

No. The Knicks were GREAT during the 90's. They made the playoffs EVERY year in the decade, making 2 finals appearances (losses in 7 and 5 games), and losing to Jordan 4 of his 6 championships. They could very well have been the 2nd best team in the decade.

The Pacers, aside from a poor season in 96-97, were just as successful as the Knicks. And the Rockets still have 2 titles, even if Jordan wasn't there during that period, with 1 against your Knicks. I'm sure that has to count for something.

as I stated in the beginning of my post, that is not the case, in the NFL at least. And at the end of the day, I'd rather have consistent winning over a decade like the Jets, then a 1 and done deal like the Raiders, Rams, Seahawks, etc.

I'm sure I'd take the Buccaneers/Saints/Giants 1 SB win and inconsistent seasons over the Jets mild consistency (had a few poor seasons) have had over the past decade. As for those teams, the Seahawks were a great franchise for the whole decade aside from these past 2 years.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I'm not so sure the Bronx is burning, or that the entire New York market is burning. In the greedy era of the modern professional athlete, NY is still a pretty enticing place to play. Regardless of whether or not you are putting a competitive team on the ice, or court, or field, New York will always be able to easily attract athletes to come and play in this Mecca of a city.

The Yankees are the cream of the crop of MLB. Whether you are a huge pan of the pin-stripers, or you hate the evil empire, New York has no trouble luring players to play there, and that's not going to change any time soon. There's lots of examples of guys going to New York when they could have gone elsewhere for equal if not more money. The Mets are lousy and have been for years, but count on it when the off-season comes, a crop of big deal free agents will go there again and contribute to their next .500 season. As I see it, nothing is burning in the Big Apple regarding MLB.

In the NFL, we have the Giants who are perennial contenders, and they'll be in the picture this year as well. The Jets come and go, but are looking to be decent this year. They don't appear to be having too much difficulty attracting guys to play in their market. Again, not much burning here.

In the NHL, the Rangers consistently attract interest in free agency. The Islanders stink, but that's largely location/arena dictated. Plus NY fans are spoiled and if the results are not there right now, they'll move on. Give the Islanders a few years to develop a core of young talent, and the fans will come back, and the free agents will follow.

The biggest concern in the NY market is the Knicks, but even that's not so bad. They did get Stoudamire. They're very much in the running next year for Anthony and/or Paul. Just because they didn't get James/Bosh/Wade is not that concerning, this summer was a unique experience regarding free agency in the NBA. The Knicks will eventually recover, and the New York basketball market will be alive and well.

When athletes factor in location, money, competitiveness, family concerns, culture, etc., NY is and will continue to be a hotbed in the sports world. NY is not burning, it's just not shining as brightly as it could be. But that swagger will return to NYC, it always does.

 

[Hazardous]

Touche. I guess a better example would be to compare them to Florida and hockey. The Panthers and Lightning are both bad. No good team there. Instead, I'll look at it as sports and not teams. Every city has their week sport and basketball is New York's.

but at least one of those teams has won the cup in the past ten years. lightning have up and down years, and the panthers at one point, were the hottest team in the NHL this year. I think for a month or two they were on fire, they do have the potential. The thing is, they dont pull in the BIG names like Gretzky, or Bure, Naslund, Jager.. The names that NY Rangers have had, and didnt go anywhere with.

Take a look at the Philadelphia Eagles, have pulled in, or made some big stars. With the likes of McNabb, T.O, and Vick. But what have they done? They have what it takes yes, but not enough to win "The Big One"

 

[Stormtrooper]

I'd throw the Chargers above the Jets as well. Both have only made 1 CC and they've been better in the regular season and have been just as successful in the playoffs. Either way, including the Chargers or not, the Jets aren't in the top 1/3 of the league. SO how do you win when there are at least 11 teams that've been more successful then the Jets? You enjoy middle of the pack? Ok.

You really just said preferred the Chargers because they have better regular seasons when they play the fucking Raiders, Chiefs, and Broncos a total of 6 times? Then they get everyones hopes up and choke on the big one in the playoffs, because their record makes people overrate them? Give me a break man. The Chargers "underachieve" (really they were just an OK team in a shit division), while the Jets were slightly OVER achieving. I'd take the overachievers ahead of the underachievers any day.

And my previous post put the Jets in the top third of the league. And I never said 11 teams MORE successful. I said 6 teams MORE successful, and a few more that are on par with the Jets, really making them tied for 7th. I'd take that, and so would any fan. If you say you wouldn't, you're full of shit.

And again, the Chargers are better then the Jets because the Jets OWN them in the postseason. That's logical, man. Completely logical. Good job on that one.

The Pacers, aside from a poor season in 96-97, were just as successful as the Knicks. And the Rockets still have 2 titles, even if Jordan wasn't there during that period, with 1 against your Knicks. I'm sure that has to count for something.

You're right here. The Rockets were better because they beat the Knicks. But I love how you are arguing here about a team being better based on Head-to-head, but not with the Jets/Chargers.... That's not bias at all....

Even still, the Knicks were at worst a top 5 team during that time, thus great. Sorry you can't see it, probably because you didn't actually see any of it, because it was before your time.

I'm sure I'd take the Buccaneers/Saints/Giants 1 SB win and inconsistent seasons over the Jets mild consistency (had a few poor seasons) have had over the past decade. As for those teams, the Seahawks were a great franchise for the whole decade aside from these past 2 years.

The Giants/Saints were clearly better, as I stated (although if the Saints didn't win the Super Bowl they wouldn't be). I put the Bucs on the same level with the Jets because they had been fucking shit for the past 8 years. And yes, of course you want a championship, but that doesn't mean they had a better decade on the whole.

And the Jets didn't have "mild" consistency as you put it. They were very consistent. 7 seasons of better then .500 football, with only 3 losing seasons. 5 playoff appearances (more appearances then 19 teams), and 4 wins in the postseason (again, more then most teams).

Stop acting like the Jets are some second rate team. The Jets are a quality organization, and don't get the credit they deserve, which is bullshit. You can hate them all you want, because they play in New York, because they have a popular head coach, because they brought in countless big-time players in the offseason, or because they've been successful over the past decade. Just don't hate them for bullshit reasons like you're giving.

 

[Megatron]

You really just said preferred the Chargers because they have better regular seasons when they play the fucking Raiders, Chiefs, and Broncos a total of 6 times? Then they get everyones hopes up and choke on the big one in the playoffs, because their record makes people overrate them? Give me a break man. The Chargers "underachieve" (really they were just an OK team in a shit division), while the Jets were slightly OVER achieving. I'd take the overachievers ahead of the underachievers any day.

The Chiefs were consistently good from 02-06. And Broncos? What? They haven't been juggarnauts but they have only had 1 season below .500, and they were 7-9. The raiders have been awful, though, I'll give you that. But Miami and Buffalo aren't anything special either. The Bills only had 1 season above .500 and 2 at .500, so how's that anything great? That's worse then anyone in the West. The Phins only had 3 playoff seasons and a few other seasons above .500.

And my previous post put the Jets in the top third of the league. And I never said 11 teams MORE successful. I said 6 teams MORE successful, and a few more that are on par with the Jets, really making them tied for 7th. I'd take that, and so would any fan. If you say you wouldn't, you're full of shit.

7 you said, actually, b/c you miscounted the Eagles. And the Packers only had 2 seasons under .500, while making the same amount of CC. The Vikings also only have 3 seasons under .500, and have made 2 Conference Championship appearances. The Seahawks, as I said, have been a great franchise (aside from the past 2 years) and made it to the SB. And the Bucs 1 Championship > Anything the Jets did. Sorry.

And again, the Chargers are better then the Jets because the Jets OWN them in the postseason. That's logical, man. Completely logical. Good job on that one.

The Raiders = 2-0 over Jets in the past decade in postseason.

And going by your logic, the Ravens were a better franchise then the Patriots b/c they were 1-0 against them in the postseason and they both have at least a title.

Even still, the Knicks were at worst a top 5 team during that time, thus great. Sorry you can't see it, probably because you didn't actually see any of it, because it was before your time.

They probably were, but I'd put money that they weren't the 2nd best team in the League. Idc if they played against Jordan in his prime, they had 2 chances for a title and failed both times.

The Giants/Saints were clearly better, as I stated (although if the Saints didn't win the Super Bowl they wouldn't be). I put the Bucs on the same level with the Jets because they had been fucking shit for the past 8 years. And yes, of course you want a championship, but that doesn't mean they had a better decade on the whole.

Again, Championship > Anything Jets did. And they did have 5 playoff appearances in the decade. So it's not like they were complete shit.

And the Jets didn't have "mild" consistency as you put it. They were very consistent. 7 seasons of better then .500 football, with only 3 losing seasons. 5 playoff appearances (more appearances then 19 teams), and 4 wins in the postseason (again, more then most teams).

They only had 3 seasons with 4 wins over .500. It's not like they were lighting the world on fire each year like the Chargers. And they only have a grand title of 1 divisional championship. Again, idc if they played in a stronger division then the Chargers, (even though it's closer then you think), they continually snuck in by WC. Yeah, a berth is a berth, I know. But never were they ever considered a great team.

Stop acting like the Jets are some second rate team. The Jets are a quality organization, and don't get the credit they deserve, which is bullshit. You can hate them all you want, because they play in New York, because they have a popular head coach, because they brought in countless big-time players in the offseason, or because they've been successful over the past decade. Just don't hate them for bullshit reasons like you're giving.

As far as accomplishments, they're middle of the pack at BEST. They don't have a title, let alone a SB berth, and only 1 CC appearance. That really doesn't sound like 'greatness' now does it?

 

[Stormtrooper]

They probably were, but I'd put money that they weren't the 2nd best team in the League. Idc if they played against Jordan in his prime, they had 2 chances for a title and failed both times.

I retracted second best, and said the Knicks were top 5. That's not all that debatable. And top 5 is still a great decade, especially when you ahve to compete with Jordan in his prime.

The Chiefs were consistently good from 02-06. And Broncos? What? They haven't been juggarnauts but they have only had 1 season below .500, and they were 7-9. The raiders have been awful, though, I'll give you that. But Miami and Buffalo aren't anything special either. The Bills only had 1 season above .500 and 2 at .500, so how's that anything great? That's worse then anyone in the West. The Phins only had 3 playoff seasons and a few other seasons above .500.

1. The Chiefs were not all that great during that small stretch. They had 2 playoff appearances, and didn't win a single game.
2. You're right about the Broncos in the regular season. They've been pretty decent, but they still suck in the postseason.
3. Buffalo has sucked, though not to the levels of the Raiders of the past 6 or 7 years. They have been consistent 6 or 7 game winner, including a wining season in 2004 (something the Raiders never had).
4. Miami had 6 winning seasons. Only 3 playoff appearances, but 6 winning seasons in a decade is pretty good.
5. The New England Patriots are a God damn dynasty. They are better then any team in ANY division.

7 you said, actually, b/c you miscounted the Eagles. And the Packers only had 2 seasons under .500, while making the same amount of CC. The Vikings also only have 3 seasons under .500, and have made 2 Conference Championship appearances. The Seahawks, as I said, have been a great franchise (aside from the past 2 years) and made it to the SB. And the Bucs 1 Championship > Anything the Jets did. Sorry.

1. The Bucs 2002 is better then any single year the Jets had. That's true. And I miscalculated the Bucs regular season. But even putting them ahead of the Jets, that would still put the Jets in the top 10 (9 instead of 8).

The Raiders = 2-0 over Jets in the past decade in postseason.

You're right, except for the fact that the Raiders have been absolute shit. They are about 10 levels below the Jets. Had they been on the same level, they would go above them.

And going by your logic, the Ravens were a better franchise then the Patriots b/c they were 1-0 against them in the postseason and they both have at least a title.

No. 1 win is a fluke, and as I said they weren't even close to the same level.

Again, Championship > Anything Jets did. And they did have 5 playoff appearances in the decade. So it's not like they were complete shit.

But you're arguing that they WERE complete shit. You're trying to put them on par with he Bills and Raiders. They are on par with the Vikings and Packers.

They only had 3 seasons with 4 wins over .500. It's not like they were lighting the world on fire each year like the Chargers. And they only have a grand title of 1 divisional championship. Again, idc if they played in a stronger division then the Chargers, (even though it's closer then you think), they continually snuck in by WC. Yeah, a berth is a berth, I know. But never were they ever considered a great team.

1. The lack of divisions titles are 100% because of the division they play in. They play in the same division as the best team of the decade (by far), who won division titles in 01, 03-07, and 09. Jets won in 2002, Miami in 2000 and 2008.
2. So the Chargers won regular season games. As I said, all that means is they are "underachievers" when it counts (in the playoffs). The Jets were overachievers in the postseasons. And their division is so good, they won it with an 8-8 record one year.

As far as accomplishments, they're middle of the pack at BEST. They don't have a title, let alone a SB berth, and only 1 CC appearance. That really doesn't sound like 'greatness' now does it?

Greatness, no. Very goodness yes. Better then most of the league yes. and more importantly, CONSISTENTLY GOOD, YES.

 

[Megatron]

I retracted second best, and said the Knicks were top 5. That's not all that debatable. And top 5 is still a great decade, especially when you ahve to compete with Jordan in his prime.

Yeah, I'll agree with that.

1. The Chiefs were not all that great during that small stretch. They had 2 playoff appearances, and didn't win a single game.
2. You're right about the Broncos in the regular season. They've been pretty decent, but they still suck in the postseason.
3. Buffalo has sucked, though not to the levels of the Raiders of the past 6 or 7 years. They have been consistent 6 or 7 game winner, including a wining season in 2004 (something the Raiders never had).
4. Miami had 6 winning seasons. Only 3 playoff appearances, but 6 winning seasons in a decade is pretty good.
5. The New England Patriots are a God damn dynasty. They are better then any team in ANY division.

1. They had a .587 win % from 02-06, which is very good. And they were 14 games over .500 during that time, which is an average of of almost 3 wins above .500 per year.
2. They've still been good competition for the Chargers in the regular season.
3. Pretty sure the Raiders made the Super Bowl this decade, unlike the Bills who didn't even make the playoffs.
4. Yeah, but they've had a few terrible seasons as well. Not bad. Terrible
5. Obvously they're the class of their division. Just like the Chargers are in teh West.

But you're arguing that they WERE complete shit. You're trying to put them on par with he Bills and Raiders. They are on par with the Vikings and Packers.

No, they're just not an elite team like you are arguing that they are. I wouldn't put them higher then the Packers or Vikings. Probably 12-13 at best. Which isn't in the top 1/3. Which means they =/= elite.

1. The lack of divisions titles are 100% because of the division they play in. They play in the same division as the best team of the decade (by far), who won division titles in 01, 03-07, and 09. Jets won in 2002, Miami in 2000 and 2008.
2. So the Chargers won regular season games. As I said, all that means is they are "underachievers" when it counts (in the playoffs). The Jets were overachievers in the postseasons. And their division is so good, they won it with an 8-8 record one year.

1. That's what the Chargers have been doing for the past 5-6 years. They've beaten who they had to beat and had some decent competition from both the Chiefs and Broncos in those years. You can't send them down b/c they didn't do anything in the playoffs. If that was the case then the Atlanta Braves overachieved MAJORLY after their WS win b/c they never made it back to the series.
2. The Jets won their only Divisional title with a 9-7 record, so how is that great? And except for that year, every winner (in the West) had no less then 10 wins, which happened once. Which means in 10 years, 80% of the winners had at least 11 wins or more.

Greatness, no. Very goodness yes. Better then most of the league yes. and more importantly, CONSISTENTLY GOOD, YES.

Again, I agree. They're just GOOD, not GREAT. If you don't even make a SB I don't care what you say, you're only GOOD. Consistent, though, is debatable. In 03, 05, and 07, each years after they made the playoffs, they proceeded to go 4-12, 4-12, and 6-10. They had 3 years of consistency right at the beginning of the decade and ever since it's been up and down.

 

[DirtyJosé]

You sports types are so feisty, and quicker with the numbers than I am, so please, a little pity.

As a west coast native, I have noticed a decline in the prestige of all thing sports in New York. When I was younger, New York meant more that really just the Yankees. Now, it's pretty much defined by the team. The Giants are good, the Jets are decent, but the Basketball scene is a joke, and I don't know dick about hockey so I won't/can't go there.

Plenty of other cites have good teams, and good support, and good exposure. I think Tenta has a point in that part of the hit to the prestige isn't that New York teams are getting that much worse at all, but that with the elimination of local cable networks in favor of larger national ones, the element of exposure is less skewed in New York's favor. Do New York teams get any more exposure than other teams nowadays? I find the coverage to be equal in this day of 24-Hour sport channels and twitter updates to everything.

In the end, players go where the money and the opportunity is. New York will always be able to provide that as a market, but it won't always hold the distinction of being THE place to go.