Jump to content

Realignment talk not going away

The Tower

By The Tower
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Recommended

Posted by Sandbagging Steve,

How many teams will be left when the dust settles in a few years? I think there's a way for all the teams to still have some involvement. I will explain that at the end of this list. Here's my list of the top 32 programs and a list if it goes to 48. There's some debate if it goes to 48, but not much debate if it stops at 32. I guess one could debate Arizona State, but that's about it. The top 32 at least come close to carrying their own weight. Everyone below that line is losing money for t

This is great content for free.

Recommended by immamac

  • Hook 'Em

6 reactions

Go to this post
  • Replies 36.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bullet

    1514

  • Hurtlocker

    1324

  • Al_4_ISU

    1085

  • BurntOrange&White

    978

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hiphopopotamos
Hiphopopotamos
MAUFRAIS
MAUFRAIS

Aggy should abstain so the vote is 13-0 and then we can then brand it on their dog.

jofus
jofus

Posted Images

statsman

statsman 5693

Posted
Posted (edited)

I’d say, in no particular order, Texas, OU, Bama, Georgia, Florida and Tennessee are blue bloods. (Tennessee is the one with solid credentials but not recent performance. Florida is the inverse). 
 

In the B10, Michigan, tOSU, PSY and USC. 
 
In the other Power conferences- Notre Dame. 
 
Am I missing any?

Edited by statsman
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TKthunder2

TKthunder2 5059

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, statsman said:

I’d say, in no particular order, Texas, OU, Bama, Georgia, Florida and Tennessee are blue bloods. 

8 blue bloods: Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and Nebraska (historically speaking but falling fast)

The near blue blood status: Penn St, Tennessee, LSU, Georgia, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Miami, Florida State

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bullet

bullet 1630

Posted
Posted
On 11/17/2022 at 2:08 PM, Al_4_ISU said:

This is the way I think every league will go.

Hopefully all leagues retain some form of protected rivalries within them, but this does produce the best CCG by far.  It also brings me a little joy knowing that Iowa, who's been rubbing it in our face that they were born on third and get to suckle at the Buckerine tweet unimpeded will be stuffed into a corner of that league where they will no longer benefit from playing in a god awful division that gives them access to the conference title game.

I don't like it, but I agree.  They will all go that way.  Think 6 conferences have already committed to single division by 2023.  Big 10, SEC, MAC and Sun Belt are the holdouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bullet

bullet 1630

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

8 blue bloods: Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and Nebraska (historically speaking but falling fast)

The near blue blood status: Penn St, Tennessee, LSU, Georgia, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Miami, Florida State

With Washington and Oregon on the fringe of "near blue blood."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TKthunder2

TKthunder2 5059

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, bullet said:

With Washington and Oregon on the fringe of "near blue blood."

Oregon needs to rack up a bunch more wins and titles before they get that much respect. Historically speaking they are pretty low on the list and the last 15-20 years don’t erase all that. Utah outranks them.

Washington is close, top 20 all time wins and a title in the modern era. If they got a 2nd one they’d be in the near blue blood group.

As it is UW is hanging out in the 3rd tier with aggy, WVU, Virginia Tech, Michigan St, Arkansas, Colorado, Minnesota, Syracuse, Georgia Tech, and Pitt

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trojan Man

Trojan Man 429

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, bullet said:

I don't like it, but I agree.  They will all go that way.  Think 6 conferences have already committed to single division by 2023.  Big 10, SEC, MAC and Sun Belt are the holdouts.

It hasn't been officially confirmed but it's 99.99% chance B1G is going divisionless in 2024, when USC and UCLA join.  They decided to keep the division format for 2023 because they didn't want to use 3 different formats in 3 straight years (divisions in 2022, divisionless 14 teams in 2023, divisionless 16 teams in 2024).  I think this is the only way to do things once conferences get this big.  With divisions and 16 teams you would go way too long in between playing teams in the other division.  That already happens in the 14 team/8 conference game SEC, where A&M and Georgia have only played once since A&M joined.

The networks aren't paying out huge contracts to broadcast games like Ohio State/USC and Alabama/Georgia once every 5 years while getting garbage like Ohio State/Rutgers and Georgia/Vanderbilt every single year.  Divisionless conferences giving us more peer vs peer games and fewer glorified scrimmages will be a win for everybody.  As long as they pick all the right games to preserve as the 3 permanent rivals the only downside I see is the potential for ties but I think there will be enough H2H games between contenders to sort it out naturally 9/10 times.  With playoff expansion that drawback is greatly diminished because the #3 B1G/SEC team is probably still in the CFP even if they get screwed by the tiebreaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
notre dame joe

notre dame joe 205

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Trojan Man said:

It hasn't been officially confirmed but it's 99.99% chance B1G is going divisionless in 2024, when USC and UCLA join.  They decided to keep the division format for 2023 because they didn't want to use 3 different formats in 3 straight years (divisions in 2022, divisionless 14 teams in 2023, divisionless 16 teams in 2024).  I think this is the only way to do things once conferences get this big.  With divisions and 16 teams you would go way too long in between playing teams in the other division.  That already happens in the 14 team/8 conference game SEC, where A&M and Georgia have only played once since A&M joined.

The networks aren't paying out huge contracts to broadcast games like Ohio State/USC and Alabama/Georgia once every 5 years while getting garbage like Ohio State/Rutgers and Georgia/Vanderbilt every single year.  Divisionless conferences giving us more peer vs peer games and fewer glorified scrimmages will be a win for everybody.  As long as they pick all the right games to preserve as the 3 permanent rivals the only downside I see is the potential for ties but I think there will be enough H2H games between contenders to sort it out naturally 9/10 times.  With playoff expansion that drawback is greatly diminished because the #3 B1G/SEC team is probably still in the CFP even if they get screwed by the tiebreaker.

Has anyone mentioned this means that the conference will eventually split or I can I claim credit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vermin

Vermin 3171

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

It hasn't been officially confirmed but it's 99.99% chance B1G is going divisionless in 2024, when USC and UCLA join.  They decided to keep the division format for 2023 because they didn't want to use 3 different formats in 3 straight years (divisions in 2022, divisionless 14 teams in 2023, divisionless 16 teams in 2024).  I think this is the only way to do things once conferences get this big.  With divisions and 16 teams you would go way too long in between playing teams in the other division.  That already happens in the 14 team/8 conference game SEC, where A&M and Georgia have only played once since A&M joined.

The networks aren't paying out huge contracts to broadcast games like Ohio State/USC and Alabama/Georgia once every 5 years while getting garbage like Ohio State/Rutgers and Georgia/Vanderbilt every single year.  Divisionless conferences giving us more peer vs peer games and fewer glorified scrimmages will be a win for everybody.  As long as they pick all the right games to preserve as the 3 permanent rivals the only downside I see is the potential for ties but I think there will be enough H2H games between contenders to sort it out naturally 9/10 times.  With playoff expansion that drawback is greatly diminished because the #3 B1G/SEC team is probably still in the CFP even if they get screwed by the tiebreaker.

Or the Great Powers could jettison the legacy hangers-on, form a premiere league, and present a unified front to sell to TV networks, just like pro leagues.

if the AFC South had to negotiate their own TV deal, they would be fucked.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Treefidy

Treefidy 1507

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

Has anyone mentioned this means that the conference will eventually split or I can I claim credit?

Nah probably 100 pages back it’s been discussed.  Time being a flat circle and all, I fully expect the SEC to eventually diverge into and SEC and SWC with aggy once and for all imploding when that happens.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trojan Man

Trojan Man 429

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

Has anyone mentioned this means that the conference will eventually split or I can I claim credit?

Why would it?  The biggest games would still be played yearly and you'd play everyone else 2/4 years.  I don't see how Ohio State replacing games against Maryland and Rutgers with games against Iowa and USC is an existential threat to the B1G.  Ohio State fans would like that, USC fans would like that, Maryland fans would like that, Rutgers fans would like that.  Iowa fans (all fans of current B1G West teams really) might not like it because going divisionless means they no longer get a welfare spot in the CCG, but I don't think they'll get much sympathy from B1G East fanbases that had to be better than Ohio State to make the CCG and they can always fix that by getting better.  There were only 3 teams in the Pac 12 I gave a shit about playing yearly (Cal, Stanford, UCLA) and 95% of USC fans would agree those are the Pac 12 games they wanted the most.  I really wouldn't have cared what scheduling format was used as long as USC still got to play those games I really cared about and I suspect most fans feel the same way about their team's big games.

9 hours ago, Vermin said:

Or the Great Powers could jettison the legacy hangers-on, form a premiere league, and present a unified front to sell to TV networks, just like pro leagues.

if the AFC South had to negotiate their own TV deal, they would be fucked.

This might eventually happen but it would be terrible for the sport.  The chiefs need some indians just as much as the indians need the chiefs.  You can jettison Purdue and survive.  But if you jettison a few dozen Purdue-level programs that adds up to a huge ratings hit.  Those fans won't adopt Ohio State or Georgia or Notre Dame as their new team.  They'll just say "Fuck it" and quit watching.  Even if Purdue never makes the CFP a lot of their fans are still going to watch CFP games, especially those involving other B1G teams, because just having a shot gives them the dream of making it someday and connects their team to what's happening on the field.  To the credit of whoever makes decisions in CFB they got this right with the proposal for CFP expansion.  6 conference champion autobids gives the left behind ACC and Big 12 and Pac 12 fans a reason to keep watching and feel invested, instead of feeling like they're playing a totally different sport than what the B1G and SEC are playing and like there's no point in caring.  6 at large bids also makes it more likely for the second tier B1G and SEC teams to make the CFP instead of being the Georgia/Alabama/Ohio State/Clemson/Oklahoma circle jerk the 4 team playoff has been.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
notre dame joe

notre dame joe 205

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

Why would it?  The biggest games would still be played yearly and you'd play everyone else 2/4 years.  I don't see how Ohio State replacing games against Maryland and Rutgers with games against Iowa and USC is an existential threat to the B1G.  Ohio State fans would like that, USC fans would like that, Maryland fans would like that, Rutgers fans would like that.  Iowa fans (all fans of current B1G West teams really) might not like it because going divisionless means they no longer get a welfare spot in the CCG, but I don't think they'll get much sympathy from B1G East fanbases that had to be better than Ohio State to make the CCG and they can always fix that by getting better.  There were only 3 teams in the Pac 12 I gave a shit about playing yearly (Cal, Stanford, UCLA) and 95% of USC fans would agree those are the Pac 12 games they wanted the most.  I really wouldn't have cared what scheduling format was used as long as USC still got to play those games I really cared about and I suspect most fans feel the same way about their team's big games.

This might eventually happen but it would be terrible for the sport.  The chiefs need some indians just as much as the indians need the chiefs.  You can jettison Purdue and survive.  But if you jettison a few dozen Purdue-level programs that adds up to a huge ratings hit.  Those fans won't adopt Ohio State or Georgia or Notre Dame as their new team.  They'll just say "Fuck it" and quit watching.  Even if Purdue never makes the CFP a lot of their fans are still going to watch CFP games, especially those involving other B1G teams, because just having a shot gives them the dream of making it someday and connects their team to what's happening on the field.  To the credit of whoever makes decisions in CFB they got this right with the proposal for CFP expansion.  6 conference champion autobids gives the left behind ACC and Big 12 and Pac 12 fans a reason to keep watching and feel invested, instead of feeling like they're playing a totally different sport than what the B1G and SEC are playing and like there's no point in caring.  6 at large bids also makes it more likely for the second tier B1G and SEC teams to make the CFP instead of being the Georgia/Alabama/Ohio State/Clemson/Oklahoma circle jerk the 4 team playoff has been.

So the conference would split for the reasons you gave.

 

That being said, I can't say that one divisional alignment is more likely to doom a conference than another. Geographic divisions that rarely see each other seems just as likely to breed distance and dissent. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I like you slorch, but have you watched a Texas Big 12 game? Officiating is a great reason to leave as soon as fucking possible. 

It's the least of UT's worries.

 

Excuses...and badmouthing the conference is just bullshit.  but y'all know that.

 

Soon you'll be a better class of loser... just like A&M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
closetohumping

closetohumping 17818

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, slorch said:

It's the least of UT's worries.

 

Excuses...and badmouthing the conference is just bullshit.  but y'all know that.

 

Soon you'll be a better class of loser... just like A&M.

Good luck in the tuberville bowl but hey y’all crushed the pac 12 at least!

 

oh and thanks for the basketball coach.  We’ll let you know if we need anything else. Steppingstone Tech

Edited by closetohumping
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, closetohumping said:

Good luck in the tuberville bowl but hey y’all crushed the pac 12 at least!

Agreed on that horseshit, but hey when we crater our own fucking program over $800k, it's what ya fucking get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Scholz said:

Can’t wait to leave this shitty conference with its shitty fans and refs behind.

It will soon be all perfect, cept for HC and QB play.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bullet

bullet 1630

Posted
Posted
On 11/18/2022 at 10:08 PM, TKthunder2 said:

Oregon needs to rack up a bunch more wins and titles before they get that much respect. Historically speaking they are pretty low on the list and the last 15-20 years don’t erase all that. Utah outranks them.

Washington is close, top 20 all time wins and a title in the modern era. If they got a 2nd one they’d be in the near blue blood group.

As it is UW is hanging out in the 3rd tier with aggy, WVU, Virginia Tech, Michigan St, Arkansas, Colorado, Minnesota, Syracuse, Georgia Tech, and Pitt

Oregon and Washington are well ahead of the rest of the pack from their top finishes, even if their average isn't quite as separated from the pack.  Going back to 1968 (when AP began consistently ranking more than just the top 10), 20 schools have 5 or more top 5 finishes.  Nobody else more than 3 (and only Pitt, ASU and UCLA even have 3).  Oregon has 6, same as LSU, Auburn and Tennessee.  Washington and the much degraded Colorado program have 5.  You, of course, mentioned all the ones with more than 6 (the 8 blue bloods, PSU, FSU, Miami, Florida, Clemson, UGA).

All of these schools but Tennessee have 3 or more top 3 finishes.  Tennessee has 2.  Outside those 20, only Pitt and TCU have 2.  In fact, there are only 14 top 3 finishes in 54 years that are not one of those 20 schools.  Those 20 have 52 of the 54 AP MNCs in that period (Pitt and BYU the outliers).  Now Oregon and UW don't have AP titles, but UW has a coaches title.  Those 20 (but excluding Colorado now) are the only schools who are a serious threat to finish #1 in any given year.

Minnesota is not 3rd tier anymore.  They were a blue blood at one point in time, but 1967 was their last really good year.  Except for Pitt, the rest of your 3rd tier has no more than 2 top 5 finishes since 1968 and combined only 6 top 3 finishes.  Just not on the same level as UW and Oregon.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deej

Deej 77832

Posted
Posted
On 11/19/2022 at 4:28 PM, slorch said:

It's the least of UT's worries.

 

Excuses...and badmouthing the conference is just bullshit.  but y'all know that.

 

Soon you'll be a better class of loser... just like A&M.

And you'll be an even worse class of loser than you already are. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Deej said:

And you'll be an even worse class of loser than you already are. 

Blah. Blah.Blah.blah.

I see your loser smacktalk and raise you 13 years of bullshit football at our own behest.  Nothing you say could possibly hurt worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TKthunder2

TKthunder2 5059

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, bullet said:

Oregon and Washington are well ahead of the rest of the pack from their top finishes, even if their average isn't quite as separated from the pack.  Going back to 1968 (when AP began consistently ranking more than just the top 10), 20 schools have 5 or more top 5 finishes.  Nobody else more than 3 (and only Pitt, ASU and UCLA even have 3).  Oregon has 6, same as LSU, Auburn and Tennessee.  Washington and the much degraded Colorado program have 5.  You, of course, mentioned all the ones with more than 6 (the 8 blue bloods, PSU, FSU, Miami, Florida, Clemson, UGA).

All of these schools but Tennessee have 3 or more top 3 finishes.  Tennessee has 2.  Outside those 20, only Pitt and TCU have 2.  In fact, there are only 14 top 3 finishes in 54 years that are not one of those 20 schools.  Those 20 have 52 of the 54 AP MNCs in that period (Pitt and BYU the outliers).  Now Oregon and UW don't have AP titles, but UW has a coaches title.  Those 20 (but excluding Colorado now) are the only schools who are a serious threat to finish #1 in any given year.

Minnesota is not 3rd tier anymore.  They were a blue blood at one point in time, but 1967 was their last really good year.  Except for Pitt, the rest of your 3rd tier has no more than 2 top 5 finishes since 1968 and combined only 6 top 3 finishes.  Just not on the same level as UW and Oregon.

 

All fair points. I don’t disagree with adding in polls but the method I use is fairly straightforward/simplistic and covers most of what are universally recognized. I was going just off modern titles and all time wins. To be in the blue blood and near blue blood conversation you need at least 2 titles since 1945 (end of WWII and also the last title won by Army often seen as the start of the modern era).

The blue bloods and near blue bloods I listed are all the ones with 2+ titles after 1945 only omitting Michigan State who has two in 1952 & 1965 but lack of recent titles and the sizable gap between their 720 wins and the majority of the blue/near blue bloods in the 800/900+ club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vermin

Vermin 3171

Posted
Posted
On 11/19/2022 at 12:53 PM, Trojan Man said:

This might eventually happen but it would be terrible for the sport.  The chiefs need some indians just as much as the indians need the chiefs.  You can jettison Purdue and survive.  But if you jettison a few dozen Purdue-level programs that adds up to a huge ratings hit.  Those fans won't adopt Ohio State or Georgia or Notre Dame as their new team.  They'll just say "Fuck it" and quit watching.  Even if Purdue never makes the CFP a lot of their fans are still going to watch CFP games, especially those involving other B1G teams, because just having a shot gives them the dream of making it someday and connects their team to what's happening on the field.

Hardcore fans of bottom-tier CFB teams are the biggest fans of the sport and unlikely to quit watching entirely. And even if they did, who cares? The big brands draw in much more casual viewers anyway.

The same thing was said about the Premiere League. Without an actual team, soccer fans in small rural towns would never watch. Yea, right.

And the "need" for noncompetitive body-bag games? No thanks. I'll take intriguing awesome match-ups every week please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deej

Deej 77832

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, slorch said:

Blah. Blah.Blah.blah.

I see your loser smacktalk and raise you 13 years of bullshit football at our own behest.  Nothing you say could possibly hurt worse.

Just a small fraction of the time Tech has been wandering in the desert. You have fewer titles than aggy and less relevance. Let that sink in. 

Edited by Deej
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hook me

hook me 2163

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Deej said:

Just a small fraction of the time Tech has been wandering in the desert. You have fewer titles than aggy and less relevance. Let that sink in. 

lol at least a&m went to a big 12 championship. TTU & KU are the only members to have never attended one of those. I'd put my money on one of the new schools playing for it before TTU sniffs it, even with their 20+ year head start.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

You’re on our board talking shit about our team.   Same with the buckeye fans on this board.  I know most disagree but you gotta at least be respectful especially if you’re a fan of a tier 3 program

In a realignment thread, you assholes are badmouthing the rest of the league... and someone says, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass"

and the neggers come out.  Every single one of them is an endorsement of your own fanbase's bitchassedness.

Keep em coming.

I don't start shit, but wholly fuck, don't get all  bent out of shape when someone responds.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
closetohumping

closetohumping 17818

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, slorch said:

In a realignment thread, you assholes are badmouthing the rest of the league... and someone says, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass"

and the neggers come out.  Every single one of them is an endorsement of your own fanbase's bitchassedness.

Keep em coming.

I don't start shit, but wholly fuck, don't get all  bent out of shape when someone responds.

Yea only you didn’t say that. You’re dogging our program and you’re a fan of tech.  I can understand a sooner or buckeye doing it but what have you guys done?   To me it’s poor form at best  but yes we are bitches.    See ya later Holmes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

I do love MOST of you  and have long been confident that lots laughing and shittalking would take place in a face to face meeting, even if not at Perry's in the Woodlands.

Happy Thanksgiving, assholes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trojan Man

Trojan Man 429

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Vermin said:

Hardcore fans of bottom-tier CFB teams are the biggest fans of the sport and unlikely to quit watching entirely. And even if they did, who cares? The big brands draw in much more casual viewers anyway.

The same thing was said about the Premiere League. Without an actual team, soccer fans in small rural towns would never watch. Yea, right.

And the "need" for noncompetitive body-bag games? No thanks. I'll take intriguing awesome match-ups every week please.

The Premiere League is a professional league, which is an inaccurate comparison with CFB.  The NFL would be a more accurate comparison.  Professional fandom is more malleable than college fandom for a couple reasons.  Pro sports are more national than college sports so you don't need a local team to feel invested and people tend to have a deeper connection with college teams, making it harder to abandon them or choose a new one to follow (nobody has a framed piece of paper that says "University of Dallas Cowboys" in their office).  When the Rams left LA some of their fans quit watching the NFL but most of them adopted a new team.  There are tons of Cowboys/Packers/Steelers fans around LA and not all of them are from Texas/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania.  In the 20 years between the Rams leaving and the Rams returning NFL fandom stayed strong in LA despite not having a local team because it's a far more national product than CFB.

If USC and UCLA dropped football or never joined the B1G and were relegated to some lesser level of competition while the B1G/SEC went on to make their own league and playoff only playing each other you would not see that same sort of B1G/SEC adoption in LA like there was for the NFL.  College sports in LA would end up like college sports in NYC, where none of the natives give a shit.  Why would smaller fanbases like Purdue's handle being kicked out of the party any differently?  Like I said, you can cast off one small fanbase and survive. You cast off every fanbase after the biggest 24-32 in the sport and that adds up to a big chunk of viewers who will no longer consume your product.

As for those awesome matchups every week, they won't feel so awesome when even the best teams have at least 2-3 losses every year because they replaced all the games they typically win 95% of the time with stiffer competition while the teams that currently win 8-10 games become 4-6 win programs and take a reputation hit.  No more 11-0 Michigan vs 11-0 Ohio State or 12-0 Georgia vs 11-1 Alabama (last year's SEC CCG) after you replace the bottom half of each team's schedule with top 25ish teams.  This is where the chiefs need the indians.  The indians eat losses and inflate records for the chiefs, the indians get paid to be a punching bag that dreams about the once in a generation dream season where they become a power, the chiefs feel good about winning 10-12 games, the indians tune in to watch the chiefs play each other.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
statsman

statsman 5693

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, slorch said:

In a realignment thread, you assholes are badmouthing the rest of the league... and someone says, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass"

and the neggers come out.  Every single one of them is an endorsement of your own fanbase's bitchassedness.

Keep em coming.

I don't start shit, but wholly fuck, don't get all  bent out of shape when someone responds.

“Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out…”

Lord, if only. If only we could have left already. But, no, the free riders in the Big 12 want to leach as much as they can before we go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47205

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

When the Rams left LA some of their fans quit watching the NFL but most of them adopted a new team. 

Nothing but anecdotal evidence to the contrary:  I rooted for the St. Louis Cardinals as a kid in the 70s.  Jim Hart, Neil Lomax, Ottis Anderson, Jackie Smith, Conrad Dobler, etc.  They left for Arizona.  I've never rooted for any NFL team since.  Not even the Rams.  I literally could not give a tinker's damn, and they won a Super Bowl.

I kinda keep one eye on the Cowboys because they're on a lot, but I don't put much emotional energy into them, not like any number of Longhorns teams or Cardinals baseball.

Sometimes fans just leave once they get fucked over.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...