Good point, but I think the Bengals "bad seasons" are much worse than the Reds "bad seasons" and that may make the down years linger in our memory longer. 4-11-1 and 4-12 are much worse percentage wise than anything the Reds have done lately, and then they end up in with a top 5 5 draft pick as well, which may matter since the NFL draft is so popular.
Also, the Bengals did have a stretch of players getting in trouble with the law. That has mostly stopped recently, but I think it created a bad image that still stains the franchise a bit.
The Bengals also became a bit of a national target for a while, jokes on Tonight Show, etc, and that probably still adds to their reputation. The Reds really haven't been on that level since the days of Schottzie - they had bad ownership baseball-wise, but not as much of the embarrassing off field stuff or jokes.
You are right abou tthe actual performances being similar, but the perceptions are not
Originally Posted by top6
Since Marvin got here, the Bengals have been just as good as the Reds under Castellini--i.e., competitive, sometimes able to slip into the playoffs, but unable to do anything once there, generally unable to ever win a big game, and completely outclassed by their rivals in the division.
There's no way anyone can say the Bengals have been worse than the Reds in recent years. The only thing the Reds have is a history of success, albeit one that dates back decades.