2002 to 2006 ARE WE THE WORST IN HISTORY????

????????????? :?

Worst In History Possibly. I havent really been alive that much to tell really. Ive been going to the games since I was 6 so for about 10 years now and I havent really enjoyed watching them these past 4 years as I have in the late 90's. I Think they need to go into a Re-buliding process. get a new GM A whole new coaching staff and release some vetrans and start with a young core of players and in the next few years return to the Grey Cup playing days like the late 90's. There the bottom of the leauge theres now where to go but up.

The Argo teams of the 60's were awful poor. But this might be close.

The Argos in the 60's were bad but they had bad managment. OH, gee, forget what I said.

GOTC, I may have an answer for you. I don’t have a long memory either, but thanks to Gordon Currie’s 100 Years of Canadian Football, I have the standing from 1925 to 1969 right here.

Ottawa had a poor four-year spell from 1929 to 1932, when they went 0-6 in the Big Four every year (total record: 0-24). Imagine not winning any games for four seasons.

After that, it was Montreal’s turn: from 1935 to 1940, they occupied the basement by going 5-33-1. In three of those six seasons, they had no wins (1935, ‘38, ‘39).

The worst Hamilton teams seem to date from the era when the Wildcats and Tigers competed for players and fans. From 1945 to 1949, Hamilton teams went 4-46-4. That’s just sad. It may have happened because we gave up the Anthony Calvillo of the day, Joe Krol, to the Argonauts. The worst season was 1949, when Hamilton went 0-12, but they also posted a goose-egg in the win column in 1946 when they went 0-10-2.

Ever-dutiful Toronto took its turn. From 1956 to 1959, it posted four consecutive seasons at 4-14-0 (total record:16-56-0). After two dizzying seasons with a winning record, they stumbled back into the basement for five seasons and a total record of 19-51-0. In comparison to the earlier sad-sacks from the East, however, these Toronto teams look pretty good.

As near as I can tell, no team in the West has tanked as consistently as these Eastern teams. Saskatchewan, though, had some stinkers between 1957 and 1961 (going 8-56, with a 1-15 record in 1959), after which a certain QB changed their fortunes.

I don’t have standings after 1969. Maybe someone else does. Using these stats, though, the worst team ever might have been Ottawa in the 1920-30s. Second would be close between Montreal and Hamilton (since the Cats have to take responsibility for the Wild-Cat losses if we also want the Grey Cup wins!) If a win counts for one, and a tie counts for one-half, here’s the winning percentages:

Ottawa, 1929-32: 0%
Hamilton, 1945-49: 11%
Saskatchewan: 1957-61: 13%
Montreal, 1935-40: 14%
Toronto, 1956-59: 22%
Toronto, 1962-67: 27%
Hamilton, 2003-06: 27% (17-46-1)

Again, I’m using the standings reported in a book published thirty-five years ago. If these stats are wrong, or if my math is off, my apologies.

From the year 2002 until present, our record is 24-57-1. 29.88%

Or if you just want to include the years of the current ownership 2004 to present, our record is 16-29-1. 35.87%

So according to the stats HA1912GCC gave, no the 2002 to 2006 Tiger-Cats are not the worst in history.

On the brighter side of things, in 1993 we ended up in second place in the Eastern Division with a record of 6-12 and made it all the way to the Eastern Divisional Finals where we lost 20-19 to Winnipeg.

yes we are

HA1912GCC: Couldn't you be more thorough in your analysis? See, for example, ToddKing's answer.

I was tempted to number-crunch too, so no biggie. :wink:

In terms of a futility-off, the Argos and Cats from 1975-1979 were pretty brutal (the 1976 Cats did scrape to eight-and-eight). LOL

it was amazing because the Cats had some good players in that period, most notably Jimmy Edwards.

Oski Wee Wee,

Once again, the eternal feud between quantitative and qualitative research rears its ugly head.

You guys are hilarious!

BTW HA1912GCC - The CFL.ca standings now have a scrollable "Select a Year", where you can go all the way back to 1936. That'll fill in what happened after your book was written.

Link is here.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Okay, okay. Thanks to Tuck and an extended coffee break, I’ve tried to be more thorough ... and looked at the standings since 1970 and can add three more teams to the "futility-off" (tip of the hat to oski-o-o).

Toronto in the 1970s had a rough eight seasons, going 41-84-3, but the worst stretch was 1978-82 when they went 17-47-0 for a winning percentage of 27%.

Somehow we’ve all forgotten (perhaps rightfully) the squads fielded by Ottawa and Saskatchewan in the 1980s.

Sask is the better of these teams, but that’s not saying much. From 1978 to 1987, they had one winning season. Their cumulative record was 50-109-5, for a winning percentage of 32%. The worst stretch was 1978-80: 8-39-1, for 18%.

Ottawa, meanwhile, had no winning seasons from 1984 until they went under in 1996 (13 seasons in all). Their best year in this stretch was 1992, when they went 9-9. Otherwise, the cumulative record for 13 seasons is 60-169-1, for 26%. There were two disastrous stretches. From 1986-89, they were 17%. From 1993-96, they were 19%. I suppose it would be “piling on? to count these as two separate teams, but hey ...

So, to update the earlier list of futility:
Ottawa, 1929-32: 0%
Hamilton, 1945-49: 11%
Saskatchewan, 1957-61: 13%
Montreal, 1935-40: 14%
Ottawa, 1986-89: 17%
Saskatchewan, 1978-80: 18%
Ottawa, 1993-96: 19%
Toronto, 1956-59: 22%
Toronto, 1962-67: 27%
Toronto, 1978-82: 27%
Hamilton, 2002-06: 29.8% (thanks to jlshooter)

There you go, that's the kind of intellectual rigour I think we've all come to expect from anonymous internet posters.

Ball's in your court, ToddKing - we eagerly await your reasoned, dispassionate counterargument.

Meantime, here's a new cheer idea: "We're not the worst! We're not the worst!"

I must have missed something here.All I said is yes we are.

I'll need another coffee before I respond to that. Has anyone here got something hot ...? I'm gonna need something hot. Something exceptionally hot .... It's funny, 'cause you'd think someone would have something hot ...


I was expecting a simple... "Yes", but Todd tricks everyone with the 'play dumb, and reiterate your stance' move! Simplicity works. It seems he's taken a clear advantage over HA1912GC, who is left floundering - looking for his record book and caffeine stimulation!

Dammit, Tuck, I’m a doctor, not a rhetorician.

I'm with Tuck. Sorry HA, but I think he's got you beat.

I was ready to be persuaded by your seemingly comprehensive display of number-crunching and the vaunted "quantitative research" methods you advocate. But ToddKing has reasserted his position in its pure, eloquent simplicity. His unflinching conviction trumps your revisionist "Oh-I-have-more-data-now-let-me-recalculate" waivering. (Beer commercial and Star Trek references notwithstanding)

Alas, my cunning ploy to defend our team's honour with historico-statistical interdisciplinarity -- or if you prefer, cliometrics -- has been foiled. I bow to the piercing assertions and superior argumentation of ToddKing with frank admiration, only slightly spilling my now thoroughly luke-warm coffee.