- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Which is the worst franchise between the Cincinnati Bengals and the Cleveland Browns?
Posted on 8/23/25 at 4:18 pm to Stealth Matrix
Posted on 8/23/25 at 4:18 pm to Stealth Matrix
quote:The NFL titles are why I gave the Browns a slight edge over the Bengals all-time. I've only watched 1 Cleveland playoff win and 5 by Cincinnati.
NFL titles:
Browns 4
Bengals 0
Super Bowls appearances:
Bengals 3
Browns 0
Tough one. I'll give the Browns the pre-SB title prestige.
0
Posted on 8/23/25 at 4:29 pm to BuckI
*worse
Posted on 8/23/25 at 4:40 pm to JerryTheKingBawler
quote:
I’ll say a team that made two conference championships and a Super Bowl this decade doesn’t qualify.
They do if he is talking about all-time.
Bengals have been much better recently but all-time, it's still the Browns for now.
Bengals have 22 winning seasons out 57 played (39%)
Browns have 40 winning seasons out of 75 played (53%)
Posted on 8/23/25 at 4:44 pm to AUFANATL
The Bengals have the cheapest owner in sports. The Brown family needs to sell the Bengals to allow them to grow. They have god awful facilities, no scouts, won't even pay for legends hotel rooms when they get inducted into their ring of honor.
Posted on 8/23/25 at 6:06 pm to BuckI
That’s why the south cares about college football more than the actual professional level of the sport. Their pro teams are pure trash
This post was edited on 8/23/25 at 6:08 pm
Posted on 8/23/25 at 6:13 pm to BuckI
Bengals
They are cheap AF.
They are cheap AF.
Posted on 8/23/25 at 6:15 pm to Kansas City King
The Browns are the better franchise by a massive margin.
Their iconic players remain iconic. They actually have NFL championships.
They have actual epic playoff moments as well.
The Bengals have some recency bias, and the silly affection of so many LSU fans that frequent here, but they're not in the same level.
Their iconic players remain iconic. They actually have NFL championships.
They have actual epic playoff moments as well.
The Bengals have some recency bias, and the silly affection of so many LSU fans that frequent here, but they're not in the same level.
Posted on 8/23/25 at 6:27 pm to BoardReader
quote:
The Browns are the better franchise by a massive margin.
Their iconic players remain iconic. They actually have NFL championships.
So Cleveland kept all of the history? I know they got to keep the name for the expansion team. But all that history really should go to the Ravens, since that's where the franchise moved. This Browns franchise isn't really directly tied to any of that history, except the same city and name..
Posted on 8/23/25 at 6:52 pm to brmark70816
quote:
So Cleveland kept all of the history?
It is in the written language of the agreement that formalized the settlement that allowed Baltimore to become an expansion franchise in 1996-- that is what is considered to be their starting date. The league itself closed the operations of the Browns, while Model took the ownership of the expansion team, and the NFL deactivated the franchise with the pledge to restart it no later than 1999. The flipside is that there was no dispersal draft and the Ravens were allowed to take over their entire roster and front office operations, but did not get the expansion draft. That draft did happen, but it was to repopulate the Browns when the league determined they would not be relocating anyone else to Cleveland after 1998 and unilaterally restarted the Browns.
Technically, the Ravens are the expansion franchise, and the Browns remain the Browns. It just got a little convoluted.
This post was edited on 8/23/25 at 6:54 pm
Posted on 8/23/25 at 7:38 pm to BuckI
Bengals been a historic bottom feeder.
Both are bottom 5 franchises
Both are bottom 5 franchises
Posted on 8/23/25 at 7:45 pm to UltimaParadox
Yeah, it’s a tossup, I don’t watch either of them.
Posted on 8/23/25 at 7:50 pm to BuckI
In Super Bowl era, Browns, easy.
Bengals - 3 Super Bowl apperances
Browns - Zero
Bengals - 3 Super Bowl apperances
Browns - Zero
Posted on 8/24/25 at 9:33 am to LSUAlum2001
quote:Mike Brown is the worst owner in sports. Haslam is catching up.
Bengals
They are cheap AF.
Posted on 8/24/25 at 9:44 am to BuckI
Its bizarre how people on the board act like the Bengals are a bad organization. They really arent and they're pretty average for the NFL.
Theyve been competitive for the majority of the last 25 years with a handful of good teams led by Carson Palmer in the 2000s, to a few solid years with Andy Dalton to now some great playoff runs with Burrow.
The hate they get is extremely overblown.
The Browns are FAR worse and its not even close, the comparison is completely retarded.
Theyve been competitive for the majority of the last 25 years with a handful of good teams led by Carson Palmer in the 2000s, to a few solid years with Andy Dalton to now some great playoff runs with Burrow.
The hate they get is extremely overblown.
The Browns are FAR worse and its not even close, the comparison is completely retarded.
Posted on 8/24/25 at 9:47 am to BuckI
quote:
Mike Brown is the worst owner in sports. Haslam is catching up.
The Rays owner, the Marlins owner, the Glazers and Manchester United, the Pirates owners, the Browns owners, Art Moreno and the Angels, the Rockies owners, etc.
There are so many more franchises with less success than the Bengals over the last 2 decades.
Posted on 8/24/25 at 10:23 am to BuckI
Not the franchise that was in the Super Bowl a few years ago and had the best QB in the league last year.
Posted on 8/24/25 at 10:35 am to BuckI
the Browns franchise some of you are giving credit for championships, Otto Graham, and Jim Brown is the Ravens.
Posted on 8/24/25 at 11:12 am to tiggerthetooth
quote:Is this serious? They suck arse.
ts bizarre how people on the board act like the Bengals are a bad organization.
quote:If you call not winning a playoff game from 1991 to 2021 competitive.
Theyve been competitive for the majority of the last 25 years
quote:Burrow is the only reason their last playoff win was not in 1990.
to now some great playoff runs with [embed]Burrow[/embed].
Posted on 8/24/25 at 11:19 am to DoctorWorm
quote:No, everything pre-1996 stayed in Cleveland. The Ravens got the players and staff.
the Browns franchise some of you are giving credit for championships, Otto Graham, and Jim Brown is the Ravens.
Posted on 8/24/25 at 1:29 pm to BuckI
quote:
Theyve been competitive for the majority of the last 25 years
As previously mentioned, when you don't win a single playoff game for the first 21 years in a 25 year window, people are going to be skeptical.
As for your 'competitive'-- take a look at the time period as a whole-
10 wins or more every third year isn't absolutely awful-- it isn't good, but it isn't awful-- but having as many seasons with 6 wins or less is pretty bad.
With the valleys being as high or higher than the peaks, the relative success of their peer competitors in the same time, and the lack of post season success, it is little wonder they are held in such light regard.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News