Easily the best decade of Boston sports
 

It's pretty unreal.

Patriots won 7 AFC Championships, made it to 5 AFC Championship games (winning 4 of them), made it to 4 Superbowls (won 3 of them) and had one of the most ridiculous regular seasons of all time in 2007. Red Sox came back from being down 0-3 vs the fucking New York Yankees in the '04 ALCS then went on to win the World Series for the first time in 86 years, all after getting knocked out of the Yankees the year before on a walk off homerun. Red Sox then won the Series again in '07, so after not winning 1 in 86 they win 2 in 3 years. The Celtics, after being pretty terrible for 10+ years, made huge trades to get Ray Allen & Kevin Garnett won a NBA Championship in 2008. Making it even better they beat the LA Lakers. Even fucking BC Football had a bit of a role in it all, getting all the way up to #2 in the rankings at one point and making it to 2 ACC Championship games.

They did some shit in hockey too but I dunno about all that, I think BC & BU both won a National Championship or two. Bruins probably did something too who knows

Crazy part is it could have been even better, give Merriweather or Samuel a pair of hands during that last Giants drive in the Superbowl or take away injuries to Garnett & Brady and you never know. On the flip side tho you could take away a tuck rule or change a game 7 result during the Celts run and it wouldn't be as good - so I'll take it

I am curious if anyone area can touch this. I guess people from Pennsylvania if you are a Steelers/Phillies fan but I dunno if that counts since it's really should be the Eagles. Just like I don't count people from Connecticut who like the Yankees and the Patriots or something dumb like that.

SU had a good decade for sports college wise.just ignore evereything after 2004 foor football

Nobody will respond in this because they're bitter and hate us. But it was a great decade

Lets high five!

Bruins didn't do anything
which is too bad

the broons

Either that or they just don't care ;)

Yeah they blew it. I don't watch hockey but I know they've had some good regular seasons but haven't made any noise in the post-season. Celtics where pretty bad too though until they made the big trade, they almost really dropped the ball too. Got their shit together right towards the end of the decade

Absolutely hated those 2 years where they were in the top 3 of the East only to get upset by Montreal in both times. What made it worse was they lead 3-1 and 3-1/2 in both series only to lose the next 2-3 games in a row in dramatic fashion.

The only positive was the Thorton trade, as dumb as it was, ended up bringing in newer players not used to choking which helps to explain last year's good season.

Celtics were only really horrible in the middle of the decade since earlier they managed to reach the East Finals and Semi-finals in back to back years but the over usage of the 3 pt shooting as their main style hurt them both times.

Boston easily had the best decade in sports, but who had the second best?

Food for thought.

Oh shit you are right. Forgot about that run they had when Walker was still on the team. That was a fun team to watch, especially in the playoffs. It was fairly obvious they never gonna win a title though, any top Western Conference team would have murdered them in the Finals, I think that's why it slipped my mind.

how did the Patriots win 7 AFC Championships while only making the AFC title game 5 times?

Might be between L.A., Pittsburgh/Pennsylvania, New York/New Jersey, or Detroit.

L.A. probably would have to add in WNBA or MLS since they lack an NFL team while Detroit would be because of Red Wings and Pistons (and Tigers for 1 year).

Washington had probably the worst decade ever. We had the worst team in baseball for 4 years, the football team made the playoffs a few times but embarassed themselves every single season/offseason/had ridiculous coaching fiascos, the Wizards lost to the LeBron 3 years in a row in the playoffs and sucked other than that, the Caps were really the only bright spot now that they've got the best player in the league and made the playoffs a few times. The thing is every team Washington fucking hate has won championships, Phillies, Penguins, Giants, it is terrible.

To be fair, Washington inherited the mess of the MLB-run Expos since both MLB and the previous owner did nothing for the team for the last few years they owned the team.

Cleveland has to be the most "cursed" team of the decade with the Indians loosing in the 2007 ALCS and then later loosing the 2 pitchers who carried them in back to back years (CC in 2008, Lee in 2009), the Lebrons get swept in the hyped NBA finals vs Spurs, and the Browns getting worse each year since coming back to NFL.

Meant to say AFC East

2nd best might be st. louis with the rams and the cardinals both winning their respective championships.

The state of pensylvania might have been the most successful more so than boston with the steelers, eagles, phillies, and pittsburg hockey, but that includes two cities as big as boston so that doesnt really count.

The worst might be kansas city with the chiefs and royals

Indiana cant touch Boston for the decade, but the Superbowl Championship in 2006 was so amazing . The way it happend. It was storybook. Getting crushed by the Pats time and time again and then in the AFC title, go down 21-6 at half and looking like it's about to happen again and then Peyton comes out like the human torch and starts slinging it and brings us back. The way this title run played out that year was so amazing. It carries the entire decade for Indiana.

Huh?

7 AFC East Championships probably

Already addressed that in the thread bro

I like the Bruins well enough, actually quite a lot, but I'm a Habs fan first and foremost so I don't mind the Bruins losing to the Habs, but at the same time, it would be nice to see that franchise put something together again.

They are undefeated thus far in the new decade :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Super Bowl
2000* St. Louis Rams
2001 Baltimore Ravens
2002 New England Patriots
2003 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
2004 New England Patriots
2005 New England Patriots
2006 Pittsburgh Steelers
2007 Indianapolis Colts
2008 New York Giants
2009 Pittsburgh Steelers

World Series
2000 New York Yankees
2001 Arizona Diamondbacks
2002 Anaheim Angels
2003 Florida Marlins
2004 Boston Red Sox
2005 Chicago White Sox
2006 St. Louis Cardinals
2007 Boston Red Sox
2008 Philadelphia Phillies
2009 New York Yankees

NBA Championships
2000 Los Angeles Lakers
2001 Los Angeles Lakers
2002 Los Angeles Lakers
2003 San Antonio Spurs
2004 Detroit Pistons
2005 San Antonio Spurs
2006 Miami Heat
2007 San Antonio Spurs
2008 Boston Celtics
2009 Los Angeles Lakers

Stanley Cup
2000 New Jersey Devils
2001 Colorado Avalanch
2002 Detroit Red Wings
2003 New Jersey Devils
2004 Tampa Bay Lightning
2005 Lockout Year
2006 Carolina Hurricanes
2007 Anaheim Ducks
2008 Detroit Red Wings
2009 Pittsburgh Penguins

NCAA Football
2000 Oklahoma
2001 Miami
2002 Ohio State
2003 LSU and USC
2004 USC
2005 Texas
2006 Florida
2007 LSU
2008 Florida
2009 Alabama*

NCAA Basketball
2000 Michigan State
2001 Duke
2002 Maryland
2003 Syracuse
2004 UConn
2005 North Carolina
2006 Florida
2007 Florida
2008 kansas
2009 North Carolina

MLS Cup
2000 Kansas City Wizards
2001 San Jose Earthquakes
2002 Los Angeles Galaxy
2003 San Jose Earthquakes
2004 D.C. United
2005 Los Angeles Galaxy
2006 Houston Dynamo
2007 Houston Dynamo
2008 Columbus Crew
2009 Real Salt Lake

In my opinion, you can't start calling a city "the best" without championships to back it up. The rest is reinforcement of dominance. Boston, for example, has three of it's four pro teams winning like six or seven championships, then was overall dominant in NFL and MLB, with very good NBA teams as well.

For second, I think you have to say Los Angeles, although it has the unfair advantage of having like 10 teams. But the massive success of the Lakers, combined with wins by the Angels, Ducks, and Galaxy (combined with just general success among the Angels, Dodgers, Ducks, USC football, UCLA basketball).

In terms of smaller cities, you could say St. Louis had some great ups, but they've had some deep downs with the Rams and the Blues. Pittsburgh had some great years in football and hockey, but the general terrible-ness of the Pirates hurts. Philadelphia had an overall solid decade as well, but only one championship to show for it.

A dark horse might be North Carolina, where you have really good UNC and Duke teams as usual, combined with a Hurricanes championship and in general a very strong Panthers team.

I wouldn't put New York City on there, because for having 8 major pro teams and the advantages of playing in the biggest media market, the Yankees only won three times and the Giants once. And that is negated by terrible Knicks, Islanders, and for the most part Rangers teams, as well as the Red Bulls are terrible.

In terms of college sports, Florida would be hands down the best place to have been at college the past couple years (you blew it, Stima!!), with USC coming in a close second. Texas would probably be the third.

You could probably add in WNBA and Women's College basketball into the title lists since both did expand reasonably the last decade. Would be similar to including the MLS since both did expand into the big markets or got more popular.

this is all wrong... if your going by the year they won the title, all your teams are off by a year, if your going by the majority of the season they played, then you 2009 team is wrong because their game with texas hasnt happened yet unless your trying to give us your prediction.

The * was meant to show that the game has not happened yet. Since the entire season is played in one year, and then about six bowl games are in early January of the next, I assumed it would be easier to go by the year in which the season is actually played.

The Super Bowl has a similar situation (also used an *), but since the NFL regular season ends in January and the Super Bowl takes place in February, I figured the champion is more identifiable by the second year.

Also, WNBA and women's college basketball are considerably less popular than MLS. Women's college basketball has a few prime markets, but very little following outside of the late rounds of the NCAA Tournament. WNBA basically has no attendance. MLS averages 15000+ per game, with multiple teams surpassing the 20000+ mark now. I think men's basketball and football are the only two relevant college sports to include, because no other sports (except hockey where they have it) resonates with more than a niche audience.

On a small soapbox for a moment, I think it is incredible that feminists everywhere continue to push women's basketball as the premier women's spectator sport. There simply is not a market to watch women play basketball. It's not sexist, it's just that basketball is not the women's sport that appeals to the public.

If somebody is looking for a women's team sport to push, why not volleyball? Certain NCAA programs routinely draw large crowds. I've been at college volleyball games with 6000+ people and the atmosphere is electric. There were good, enthusiastic crowds at the recent NCAA Championships, which were broadcasted on ESPN. Why do they try to stuff women's basketball down our throats when there are other women's sports that are unique, interesting, and more fun that get no mainstream attention (money)?

My guess would be because basketball is also a major men's sport so it makes them look even from some perspectives.

MLS? Chill bro

If you are gonna bring that up you might as well bring up NCAA Hockey which has 2 colleges walking distance from each other that dominate (Boston College & Boston University)

MLS is more spread out in terms of team location than NCAA Hockey which is mostly in the Northern parts of the country.

Well The Bruins won against the Flyers at Fenway Park I think that is worth mentioning.

The only things that happened for Dallas were the Mavericks making it to the NBA finals in 2006 and Diamond Dallas Page winning the World Heavyweight Championship in 2000.

Gainsville, Florida had a better sports decade than pretty much every major city in the country minus Boston and LA.

MLS exists in more than Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Colorado, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire. It also averages significantly more fans per game.

Davebrawl83 is correct in what he says, but I'm saying that is stupid logic. Just because it's popular for one sex doesn't mean it has to be popular for the other.

I meant both are secondary sports "IMO." I agree MLS is bigger but I still don't consider it a major sport.

New England Revolution are dirty newayz, they haven't won the title but I know they've been the bridesmaid quite a few times.

Yeah but can Boston keep it up? I think this decade will show us what Boston is truly made of.

Now the Kansas City decade begins.