From ESPN Team Ranker

by captain flitzy on Jul 1, 2009 7:36 PM EDT Comment 7 comments

The results are in from ESPN's ridiculous team ranker...just putting it out there for those who dont have Insider.

Last Year's Rank: 112
Title Track: 111
Ownership: 92
Coaching: 104
Players: 94
Fan Relations: 114
Affordability: 58
Stadium Experience: 70
Bang for the Buck: 70

The Pacers finished at exactly the lottery-bound 36–46 they posted in 2007-08, so how did they jump in our Standings? Well, this year's whole may not have been any better, but fans liked the parts a lot more. Team brass jettisoned dour franchise face Jermaine O'Neal and gave up on Shawne Williams' potential after one too many run-ins with the local law. Larry Legend was even willing to risk the wrath of the Players' Association to keep Jamaal Tinsley indefinitely separated from the squad. (Tinsley didn't even get a page in the team media guide.) None of the subtractions added even one victory, but they squelched the appearance of an inmate-run asylum. The Pacers also get points for $8 parking at Conseco Fieldhouse (second lowest in the league), a sweet deal in harsh times. Overall, attendance jumped from an atrocious 67% of capacity in 2007-08 to 77%, and if the Pacers can get Danny Granger to help down low, that number will surely continue to rise. The Pacers are hoping that the more things stay the same, the more they will change.

0 recs | Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

what do these numbers mean? like what are they out of?

by dbcb on Jul 1, 2009 7:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It is out of 122 franchises..

sorry i didnt even paste it, PACERS RANKED 96 OUT OF 122. it is all major sports teams in the 4 major sports. For the record, the Angels were 1st and the Clippers were last. They do it every year, and judge it somehow based on the criteria above.

heres the colts as well

Overall Rank: 14
Last Year’s Rank: 1
Title Track: 10
Ownership: 16
Coaching: 61
Players: 6
Fan Relations: 16
Affordability: 61
Stadium Experience: 19
Bang for the Buck: 17

Don’t be fooled by the top-20 ranking. For a franchise that hasn’t charted lower than fourth since 2004, this year’s rank represents a comedown. To understand Naptown’s relative nosedive, take a peek under the headset (Coaching: down 52), where former assistant Jim Caldwell replaces Tony Dungy, who reached double-digit W’s in each of his seven seasons in the 317. Failing to reach the divisional playoff round for the first time since 2002 didn’t sit well with fans, especially since they had to endure a 14% spike at the turnstiles of Lucas Oil Stadium. But we’re nitpicking: The Colts are still the Colts. Peyton Manning is still Peyton Manning. And Indy’s new stadium — the main concourse features an homage to the Hoosier State’s NFL history (Muncie Flyers, Hammond Pros, Evansville Crimson Giants), plus 26 Big Ass Fans (seriously, that’s the name of the company that makes the 24-foot, $6,000 rotating cooling panels) — is a huge upgrade (up 47 spots from last year) over the old one. No fooling.

by captain flitzy on Jul 1, 2009 9:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

cool thanks

by dbcb on Jul 1, 2009 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really the whole "Franchise Ranking" is a joke.

It’s based on a fan poll, and while that probably accurately measures the worst teams, it doesn’t mean jack anywhere else. I mean the Angles are #1. They have, without a doubt, the worst pro sports stadium I’ve ever been to (and I’ve been there numerous times). The Angels have one of the dumbest fanbases in sports. For goodness sake, 10 years ago announcers used to joke how there were no Angels fans. Whenever the Yankees would visit it would be 80% NY fans. ESPN loves making news, but this is their lowest.

by SethGrandpa on Jul 1, 2009 11:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

ooo god

its absolutely terrible. ESPN definitely does some horrible stuff, I just cant decide which is worse, this, or during football season when on the bottom line, it actually puts PROJECTED STATS for that nights monday night football, nothing is worse than that i dont think.

by captain flitzy on Jul 1, 2009 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But at least you could MAYBE justify that for fantasy football/gambling reasons.

These rankings have no point.

by SethGrandpa on Jul 2, 2009 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Come on now...

Maybe you haven’t been to an Angels game in a while. The stadium is certainly not the best, but isn’t the worst, either. The Metrodome, Tropicana Field, LandShark Stadium, Rogers Centre, and McAfee Coliseum come to mind, just to name a few, as much worse. Also, I know there weren’t a lot of Angels fans in the stands ten years ago, but in my experience at Angels Stadium, the place is filled with red-clad fans who are quite involved in the game. The organization has tremendous ownership, great coaching, and wins all the time.

by aunoonan on Jul 3, 2009 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs