Who is the Reds biggest rival?

[Unassisted]

For awhile, there was some bad blood with the Brewers. Regime change and roster shuffles on both clubs seem to have mitigated that, though. Besides, it's probably smarter not to be on the outs with the commissioner's team.

Cedric and I are sittin' here on the front steps of the old school, wishin' the rivalry could be with the Dodgers again. It takes too much effort to get revved up over the "rivals" in this division. :zzz:

Could the best answer be "The Bengals?"

[knuckler]

I'd say:
Cardinals - biggest friendly rivalry
Cubs - biggest unfriendly rivalry

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by Unassisted

Could the best answer be "The Bengals?"

Heh. It's funny cause it's true.

[PressBox]

This is a great topic. How do you define a rival? Does the rival have to be in your division? In your league? Does the rival simply have to be a hated and despised opponent? Does a rival have to be someone who you've competed with for pennants down the stretch run of several seasons? Is a rivalry based on close games and consistent high levels of play over the course of several years? How long does it take to really become a rivalry?
Is a rivalry based on geographic proximity, as Bud Selig would have us think?

I for one have never considered the Indians a rival, just an intrigue. If they were in our division, or even in our league, then I would consider them a rival. Maybe I'm too simple. But that's how I look at it.
Now, admittedly, if the Indians and Reds were to ever rise to greatness together and both be perennieal World Series contenders, then I might be willing to revisit my considerations. Back when the Indians had Belle, Ramirez, Baerga, and those great teams in the mid / late 90s, I will admit I wanted to call them a rival. But the Reds were not up to par then, just as they aren't now.

Let's flip the question around and ask ourselves this, "Which team would call the Reds their biggest rival?" Hmmm...probably the Indians. The Cubs fans would say the Cardinals and the Cardinals fans would say the Cubs. The Braves fans wouldn't say the Reds because Atlanta has pretty much dominated Cincinnati since the early 90s. This leaves me thinking Pittsburgh and/or Houston, but they're too far away to be a rival aren't they? (But then again, Los Angeles was without question our biggest rival for two decades until the playoff format expanded.) Pittsburgh hasn't been in a division race for over ten years, and not since 94 and 95 have the Astros and Reds been vying for first place together. (And if you recall, Cinci and Houston hooked up for some great games those two summers.) But then again, Los Angeles was without question our biggest rival for two decades until the playoff format expanded.

When it comes to our rival, I'm not sure if I can answer that. I might even be inclined to say we don't have a real rival right now. I can only raise questions. When it comes to our most hated opponent, that's easy to answer. Carl Lindner.

[Johnny Footstool]

Let's flip the question around and ask ourselves this, "Which team would call the Reds their biggest rival?"

There's the rub.

We can declare the Cubs or Cards our rivals, but in reality, they don't view the Reds as a rival at all. They're each other's rivals, and they have been for a long time.

A rivalry has to be a two-way street. Both teams need to be on somewhat equal footing and hate each other equally. The Reds and Dodgers of the '70s exemplified that. In the late-'80s, the Mets and Reds were working on a pretty good rivalry, and if the Reds would have faced the Mets in the playoffs, it would have reached legendary status.

IMO, the Reds don't currently have a rival. The closest thing to a rival would be Milwaukee, and since both teams seem to be putting things together at the same time, the rivalry may well blossom.

[PressBox]

I agree Johnny. The Brewers are relatively close - within driving distance of Cincinnati, anyway. Developmentally, the Reds and Brewers are in about the same place right now. Over the last few years the Reds and Brew Crew have played some good games - and of course all Reds fans hate the Brewers because they swept us in Milwaukee the last weekend of the 99 season.
The stage is set...now we just need the rest of the script to be fleshed out.

[max venable]

I'd vote for Cleveland. Ask any Reds fan in Central Ohio and they'll say the Tribe in a second.

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

There's the rub.

We can declare the Cubs or Cards our rivals, but in reality, they don't view the Reds as a rival at all. They're each other's rivals, and they have been for a long time.

A rivalry has to be a two-way street. Both teams need to be on somewhat equal footing and hate each other equally. The Reds and Dodgers of the '70s exemplified that. In the late-'80s, the Mets and Reds were working on a pretty good rivalry, and if the Reds would have faced the Mets in the playoffs, it would have reached legendary status.

IMO, the Reds don't currently have a rival. The closest thing to a rival would be Milwaukee, and since both teams seem to be putting things together at the same time, the rivalry may well blossom.

I agree, except I don't regard the Brewers as a rival either. To the extent someone wants to argue that the Cubs or Cardinals are a rival, I agree with Knuckler: Cards=friendly rival; Cubs=unfriendly rival.

[Puffy]

Originally Posted by Dugout

, and not since 94 and 95 have the Astros and Reds been vying for first place together. (And if you recall, Cinci and Houston hooked up for some great games those two summers.) But then again, Los Angeles was without question our biggest rival for two decades until the playoff format expanded.

Puffy thinks you forgot 99, when the Astros won 98 games and the Reds won 96 and they went back and forth from August on.

[MWM]

It's hard to have a "rivalry" when the team has been good only 3 times in the last 20 years and each time there were several years between them. Rivalries are deveoped in two ways: a natural geographic rivalry (i.e. Cards-Cubs); or a rivalry developed by two teams duking it out for a pennant over several years. The Reds-Dodgers in the 70s had that, butlost it once they played in a different division. If Cleveland played in the NL, that would be a rivalry. Right now, the games are pretty much meaningless.

The Reds started to develop a rivalry with the Astros back in 94-95, but the REds proceeded to drop in the standings while the Astros have never looked bck.

[BuckeyeRed27]

Michigan

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRed27

Michigan

Barry Larkin would disagree.

[MWM]

It will always be Bukeyes first, Wolverines second for me. Athletically that is. Now academically..........

[BuckeyeRed27]

Yeah that's the only problem with Barry...well that and Moeller.

I was going to ask why you had a Michigan logo and then it said Go Bucks, MWM.

[MWM]

Grew up wathcing the Buckeyes since I was 10. I've hardly missed a game on TV in almost 20 years. But UM is about to become my alma mater. I'm torn. Really, I am. But when push comes to shove, I'll never be able to root against the buckeyes under any circumstances........except maybe 1.