You might as well give up. I have a co-worker who is the same way. You can give him all the facts, but he'll still argue with you. He'll argue that black is white. The whole office knows how he is. We just look at each other after one of his dumb arguments, and show our heads and say "You can't fix stupid." :lol:

 

Or stubborn.

 

My other pet peeve is young people that know everything about everything. At the age of 21 years they have done, seen, and know all there is to know about life. Ask them about sports? They know it all. Ask them about the economy? They know it all. Ask them about micro-neuro brain surgery, and they could expound on it for hours. We all have a little bit of "know it all" in ourselves, but I'm amazed at the arrogance of young people these days and inability to recognize when someone more experienced just might possibly know more than them.

 

Not that I was any different 20-some odd years ago, though. :lol:

I picked the Bengals winning the Superbowl but I would still love to see the Reds win a World Series. I think in today's day and age everyone would agree it's much tougher to be a smaller market team and win a World Series than any team in the NFL winning a Superbowl, even though the Reds have titles and the Bengals don't.

Bengals winning the Superbowl would be my vote because if the Reds won the Series I would have to miss too much work from going to the playoffs and partying after all the wins! I would love either!

:laugh::laugh::laugh::ohbrother:I have laid the facts in front of you, but you still can't admit you're wrong.

 

What facts? Your facts showed me one playoff appearance that the people in the age range we are talking about really would have known or cared much about. You talk about the other 3 seasons above besides making the playoffs in 1995, only one of those seasons was there really much excitement with it and that was 1999. So your facts as you say, show only two real years that people really would have considered the season successful and probably were excited about it. So if you want to talk about other seasons, when they didn't make the playoffs but had good teams. Then you have to count the 2003 and 2006 seasons for the Bengals when they were a win away from making it. Shoot even the other 8 and 8 years, they were closer to possibly making the playoffs than the Reds were in some of the other above .500 seasons.

 

So your facts show nothing against my argument, and so there is nothing for me to admit I am wrong about. In the eyes of the younger generation, when it really comes down to who they see was more successful and brought more excitement it would be the Bengals. You presented basically two seasons, where people might have considered the Reds season a success, I presented 3 seasons for the Bengals. In the eyes of the younger generation, the Reds really have not done more than the Bengals at all when it comes to success. If anything maybe we should just say they were equal in that matter, since neither had much success during it. This whole argument is really just taking away from the simple thing I was saying, and that is football IMO is bigger for the younger generation, and that makes Cincinnati not quite as big of a baseball town as it use to be.

You might as well give up. I have a co-worker who is the same way. You can give him all the facts, but he'll still argue with you. He'll argue that black is white. The whole office knows how he is. We just look at each other after one of his dumb arguments, and show our heads and say "You can't fix stupid." :lol:

 

Or stubborn.

 

My other pet peeve is young people that know everything about everything. At the age of 21 years they have done, seen, and know all there is to know about life. Ask them about sports? They know it all. Ask them about the economy? They know it all. Ask them about micro-neuro brain surgery, and they could expound on it for hours. We all have a little bit of "know it all" in ourselves, but I'm amazed at the arrogance of young people these days and inability to recognize when someone more experienced just might possibly know more than them.

 

Not that I was any different 20-some odd years ago, though. :lol:

 

The simple thing is what he considered to be facts, is not really facts in what we are arguing. We are arguing which team would people in the younger generation might have felt was more successful. What the Reds did for the fans to have actually seen, would not have made them think that Reds were more successful. So there are no facts laid out there to prove anything wrong with what I am saying...

Or stubborn.

 

My other pet peeve is young people that know everything about everything. At the age of 21 years they have done, seen, and know all there is to know about life. Ask them about sports? They know it all. Ask them about the economy? They know it all. Ask them about micro-neuro brain surgery, and they could expound on it for hours. We all have a little bit of "know it all" in ourselves, but I'm amazed at the arrogance of young people these days and inability to recognize when someone more experienced just might possibly know more than them.

 

Not that I was any different 20-some odd years ago, though. :lol:

 

See a pet peeve of mine, is when people just think that since they are older that they are always right...Acting all cocky and arrogant and that since you older that someone younger can't be right over you. You all might not like how some of the younger people think, but the funny thing is you all still act the same way too. It started when you all were our age, and still continues to this day...:sssh:

What facts? Your facts showed me one playoff appearance that the people in the age range we are talking about really would have known or cared much about. You talk about the other 3 seasons above besides making the playoffs in 1995, only one of those seasons was there really much excitement with it and that was 1999. So your facts as you say, show only two real years that people really would have considered the season successful and probably were excited about it. So if you want to talk about other seasons, when they didn't make the playoffs but had good teams. Then you have to count the 2003 and 2006 seasons for the Bengals when they were a win away from making it. Shoot even the other 8 and 8 years, they were closer to possibly making the playoffs than the Reds were in some of the other above .500 seasons.

 

So your facts show nothing against my argument, and so there is nothing for me to admit I am wrong about. In the eyes of the younger generation, when it really comes down to who they see was more successful and brought more excitement it would be the Bengals. You presented basically two seasons, where people might have considered the Reds season a success, I presented 3 seasons for the Bengals. In the eyes of the younger generation, the Reds really have not done more than the Bengals at all when it comes to success. If anything maybe we should just say they were equal in that matter, since neither had much success during it. This whole argument is really just taking away from the simple thing I was saying, and that is football IMO is bigger for the younger generation, and that makes Cincinnati not quite as big of a baseball town as it use to be.

 

 

You are unreal. If you can't see that a .488 winning percentage is better than at .392 winning percentage then there is no hope for you, and no need to argue with you anymore. The Reds made the playoffs in 95, and actually won a playoff series. If there had been a playoff in 1994 the Reds would have made it. And of course the Reds won the World Series in 1990, but you obviously don't want to count that. I. I certainly hope I can carry on a more intelligent conversation with my 4 year old nephew.

You are unreal. If you can't see that a .488 winning percentage is better than at .392 winning percentage then there is no hope for you, and no need to argue with you anymore. The Reds made the playoffs in 95, and actually won a playoff series. If there had been a playoff in 1994 the Reds would have made it. And of course the Reds won the World Series in 1990, but you obviously don't want to count that. I can carry on a more intelligent conversation with my 4 year old nephew.

 

I love it, the administrator throwing an insult in there at the end, very nice. :sssh::thumb: Its really not that hard to understand that the team that had the more success that people really could have gotten behind is the Bengals. Yeah the Reds had a better winning percentage, great. Did the fans really get behind the team in those years since their winning percentage was ok, even though they were not really in position at all to have a chance to make the playoffs? Did people really consider that more of a success. That is my whole point here, in the eyes of people the Bengals probably are the team that had more success in their eyes, that is not that hard to understand. People want to talk about facts. However facts can be twisted to also support your opinion. The way you present it does support you. However this is also fact. The Reds made one playoff appearance that people 25 or younger really probably would be able to get behind and really know much about. The Bengals made two, now those are facts as well and support what I am saying. The Reds had one other year where they really had a great chance for the playoffs and that was 99. The Bengals had two other years 2003 and 2006 where they were one win away from making the playoffs. So thats another thing that is a fact, that supports my opinion. Facts can be twisted in many ways on here, so there is no reason for me to say I was wrong when facts also back up what I say.

 

Now if we really want to go further into it and count the 1990 World Series for the Reds. Then we need to count the 88 Super Bowl appearance and might as well just count every year since 1985, which would be the year 25 year olds were born:

 

Reds:

From 1985 to 1989 had 4 second place finishes, and I can't remember where they finished in 1989, however it was no playoff appearances. 1990 World Series Champions. 91 to 94 No playoffs (94 strike year). 95 NLCS, 96-98 no playoffs, 99 no playoffs (lost in play in game), 00-09 definitely no playoffs. So since 1985 they have had two playoffs appearances, however they did win the World Series which is awesome.

 

Bengals:

1985: 9-7 I don't know where they finished in the Standings.

1986: 10-6 (Missed the playoffs by one game.)

1987: Missed playoffs (Strike Year)

1988: Made the Super Bowl, lost a classic to the 49ers

1989: Went 5-1 in the division, but missed the playoffs by one game.

1990: Made the playoffs

91-02: Definitely didn't make the playoffs.

2003: No playoffs: (Missed the playoffs by one game)

2004: No playoffs

2005: 11-5 made the playoffs.

2006: No playoff (Missed the playoffs by one game)

07-08: No playoffs

2009: 10-6 made the playoffs.

 

So since 1985 the Bengals have made the playoffs 4 times compared to the Reds two. They also made it to the Super Bowl, even though they didn't win it. The 90's were terrible for the Bengals, the 2000's were terrible for the Reds. So if we really want to talk about "the facts" Well here are the facts. I still don't see anywhere that shows the Reds were more successful. If anything looks like the Bengals had more success that the fans really could get behind. So IMO its either the Bengals had the more success, or at worst they are basically the same. When it comes to success, the Bengals had more success that the fans really could get behind, and thats not hard to see.

:thumb:

I love it, the administrator throwing an insult in there at the end, very nice. :sssh::thumb: Its really not that hard to understand that the team that had the more success that people really could have gotten behind is the Bengals. Yeah the Reds had a better winning percentage, great. Did the fans really get behind the team in those years since their winning percentage was ok, even though they were not really in position at all to have a chance to make the playoffs? Did people really consider that more of a success. That is my whole point here, in the eyes of people the Bengals probably are the team that had more success in their eyes, that is not that hard to understand. People want to talk about facts. However facts can be twisted to also support your opinion. The way you present it does support you. However this is also fact. The Reds made one playoff appearance that people 25 or younger really probably would be able to get behind and really know much about. The Bengals made two, now those are facts as well and support what I am saying. The Reds had one other year where they really had a great chance for the playoffs and that was 99. The Bengals had two other years 2003 and 2006 where they were one win away from making the playoffs. So thats another thing that is a fact, that supports my opinion. Facts can be twisted in many ways on here, so there is no reason for me to say I was wrong when facts also back up what I say.

 

Now if we really want to go further into it and count the 1990 World Series for the Reds. Then we need to count the 88 Super Bowl appearance and might as well just count every year since 1985, which would be the year 25 year olds were born:

 

Reds:

From 1985 to 1989 had 4 second place finishes, and I can't remember where they finished in 1989, however it was no playoff appearances. 1990 World Series Champions. 91 to 94 No playoffs (94 strike year). 95 NLCS, 96-98 no playoffs, 99 no playoffs (lost in play in game), 00-09 definitely no playoffs. So since 1985 they have had two playoffs appearances, however they did win the World Series which is awesome.

 

Bengals:

1985: 9-7 I don't know where they finished in the Standings.

1986: 10-6 (Missed the playoffs by one game.)

1987: Missed playoffs (Strike Year)

1988: Made the Super Bowl, lost a classic to the 49ers

1989: Went 5-1 in the division, but missed the playoffs by one game.

1990: Made the playoffs

91-02: Definitely didn't make the playoffs.

2003: No playoffs: (Missed the playoffs by one game)

2004: No playoffs

2005: 11-5 made the playoffs.

2006: No playoff (Missed the playoffs by one game)

07-08: No playoffs

2009: 10-6 made the playoffs.

 

So since 1985 the Bengals have made the playoffs 4 times compared to the Reds two. They also made it to the Super Bowl, even though they didn't win it. The 90's were terrible for the Bengals, the 2000's were terrible for the Reds. So if we really want to talk about "the facts" Well here are the facts. I still don't see anywhere that shows the Reds were more successful. If anything looks like the Bengals had more success that the fans really could get behind. So IMO its either the Bengals had the more success, or at worst they are basically the same. When it comes to success, the Bengals had more success that the fans really could get behind, and thats not hard to see.

 

 

Making it to the Super Bowl is more successful than winning the World Series. :lol: Gotcha. :thumb: I'm done arguing with you.

:thumb:

 

 

Making it to the Super Bowl is more successful than winning the World Series. :lol: Gotcha. :thumb: I'm done arguing with you.

 

I never said it was, however that is just one season. We are talking about 25 years here correct? I didn't realize one year changes things for all the other years. As a whole, the Bengals have given the fans more success to really get behind and cheer for during seasons. I mean yeah the Reds winning percentage is better, however as I said in a lot of those years there still was not much for the fans to get behind and be happy about. The Bengals have offered more of that and that has been my whole argument.

 

Also your a smart guy. So obviously you would also realize that since football only plays 16 games a year, that it offers a very small sample size. That leaves very small room for error, so a few bad years really bring down a winning percentage. Say the years the Bengals won only 3 games, that is only an .18 winning percentage. For a baseball team to have a winning percentage of .18 they would have to win only 30 games out of a 162 game season. I know I just checked through some past seasons, and the fewest amount of games that a team won that I saw was 51 games. So just winning 3 games is something that you see some teams do every year in the NFL. Yet you never see a team in baseball just win 30 games and have a .18 winning percentage while its very common to happen in the NFL. So to use winning percentages to compare the two as you like to try to use, is just not a fair or good indicator at all in this case. So your right this argument is done. :thumb:

From the looks of things, I don't think Cincinnatti fans have a thing to worry about either one winning either.

Simply based on how each sport is set up, I'd go with the Reds. It would be much more impressive.

 

I agree the Bengals actually have just as good of a chance in their sport as everyone else.

 

Another point: It would be way more fun for fans that live close if it were the Reds IMO. Nothing is going on sports wise in the area in the summer except the Reds. You would have 81 chances to catch them live at a reasonable price. There can be a family atmosphere at the games compared to the Bengals atmosphere which is set up for adults. There would be multiple huge games all summer and fall even before the playoff games. It would be great for all of the local businesses. To me it's a no brainer. I'd be fine just waiting for UK to start and blow off the Bengals season that year.

I never said it was, however that is just one season. We are talking about 25 years here correct? I didn't realize one year changes things for all the other years. As a whole, the Bengals have given the fans more success to really get behind and cheer for during seasons. I mean yeah the Reds winning percentage is better, however as I said in a lot of those years there still was not much for the fans to get behind and be happy about. The Bengals have offered more of that and that has been my whole argument.

 

Also your a smart guy. So obviously you would also realize that since football only plays 16 games a year, that it offers a very small sample size. That leaves very small room for error, so a few bad years really bring down a winning percentage. Say the years the Bengals won only 3 games, that is only an .18 winning percentage. For a baseball team to have a winning percentage of .18 they would have to win only 30 games out of a 162 game season. I know I just checked through some past seasons, and the fewest amount of games that a team won that I saw was 51 games. So just winning 3 games is something that you see some teams do every year in the NFL. Yet you never see a team in baseball just win 30 games and have a .18 winning percentage while its very common to happen in the NFL. So to use winning percentages to compare the two as you like to try to use, is just not a fair or good indicator at all in this case. So your right this argument is done. :thumb:

 

 

 

First of all it's a winning percentage, and he gave you a sample size of 255 games so it's a very good indicator. Secondly the Reds gave their fans plenty of excitement from 1985-1999. The Reds finished 2nd from 85-88 when Rose was manager. There was also Rose's pursuit of Ty Cobb, Tom Browning's perfect game, Danny Jackson finishing 2nd in the Cy Young. The development of great young players such as Larkin, Sabo, Davis, O'Neil, Daniels, Rijo, Browning, Dibble. There was the World Championship in 1990, another 2nd place finish in 91 or 92 I believe. A division championship in 1995. Pete Schourek finishing 2nd in Cy Young in 1995. Barry Larkin winning the MVP in 1995. The Bengals don't even come close to matching the Reds excitement and success during those years. If you think that then you are obviously not much of a baseball fan, especially a Reds fan.

Reds.

Another thing you talk about all of the excitement the fans, and city have about the Bengals. How many times were the Bengals bailed out by Ochocinco, or some other corporation, including the Bengals themselves so they wouldn't be blacked out this year? Wow. Those fans must have been eating it up with excitement. :lol: