Poll: Cowboys America's most hated team

[BAT]

I gotta laugh. The Cowboy have yet to win a playoff game in over a dozen years, and they are coming off their WORST decade in their entire history, and yet opposing fans still have Cowboys on the brain, enough so to vote them the MOST hated NFL franchise. It takes an awful lot of energy & passion to hate. LOL


Can you imagine how they'll feel when the Cowboys start winning again. LMAO at the thought.


Hold on to your panties haters, its coming!

 

[sonnyboy]

No, I don't let others think for me. I also don't needlessly repeat things.

As for your next four questions, they have already been answered, I am not going to needlessly repeat things when you could just READ.

A team that was 13-3 in 2007 starts out at 0-0 in 2009. Performance two years ago is not relevant to today. And even if I do grant relevance, that is not a reason for arrogance, which was the beginning point of this conversation, especially when that 13-3 team was one and done in the playoffs.

Your last question is just foolish. It is manifestly clear that the Commanders performance on the field bears no relation to my personal ability to think and judge clearly.

This may just be the dumbest thing I've seen posted here by a Redsucks fan.

Recent performance is very "relevant" to any realistic current prognostication. Anyone predicting a Lions/Raiders superbowl this year?

 

[dogberry]

As a follow on to HotaboutThemCowboys, our net hate is only 14% while the Patriots have a net hate of 22%. Lot of ground to make up.

 

[lqmac1]

Poll: Cowboys America's most hated team
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on July 13, 2009 1:55 PM
Old habits die hard. Apparently, so does old hatred.

In a poll taken by ESPN, the reality show loving Dallas Cowboys fended off a Spygate-fueled challenge from the New England Patriots to win the title of America's most hated team.

Only five teams were listed as possible answers, led by the Cowboys (36%), Patriots (34%), Steelers (12%), Giants (9%), and Raiders (9%).

And while the poll is clearly being used as an artificial time-waster during the NFL's sssslow period, the 870,000 votes cast across 25 topics reveal other interesting glimpses into what football fans think.

Michael Vick, for instance, has roughly three times the fan support of other exiled players Donte' Stallworth and Plaxico Burress. And fans would still rather have Vick or Stallworth on their team than Terrell Owens. (Perhaps Joanna Krupa voted.)

The answers to two other topics may catch the league office's attention.

64% of respondents are in favor of an 18-game season. No surprise there.

A whopping 77% of NFL fans said they'd "appreciate" legal gambling on those games in their state. Even less of a surprise there.

I would looooooooooooooooooooooooove for that to happen

 

[Sammy Baugh]

This may just be the dumbest thing I've seen posted here by a Redsucks fan.

Recent performance is very "relevant" to any realistic current prognostication. Anyone predicting a Lions/Raiders superbowl this year?

Your forgetting that, at question, is not last year, but TWO years ago. Does the Dolphins performance two years ago mean that much now? No, because much has changed across the league.

You are also forgetting the "one and done" part.

 

[lcharles]

I gotta laugh. The Cowboy have yet to win a playoff game in over a dozen years, and they are coming off their WORST decade in their entire history, and yet opposing fans still have Cowboys on the brain, enough so to vote them the MOST hated NFL franchise. It takes an awful lot of energy & passion to hate. LOL


Can you imagine how they'll feel when the Cowboys start winning again. LMAO at the thought.


Hold on to your panties haters, its coming!

Opposing fans? I'm a lifelong Cowboy fan since the Landry days and sometimes I hate them as well. :laugh2:



I love them but I hate them at the same time, sometimes. I think. See what they have done to me?:bang2:

 

[DallasEast]

No, a number one seed is not relevant when it is quickly squandered.

By your logic, the #4 Buccaneers, #2 Packers and #1 Cowboys and #1 Patriots were all non-relevant seeds in 2007 since the fifth seeded Giants beat all of them to win the Super Bowl. Now, that's an arrogant conversational position to take.

Not arrogant, just a simple fact. None of those teams played on Super Bowl Sunday, so whether they were seeded #6 or #1 was irrelevant. A number 6 seed loser goes home the same way as a number one seed loser, do they not?

It'll finally dawn on you. I have faith in you. Really.

The hell I do.

~ almost 48 hours later ~

...or perhaps not.

 

[Sammy Baugh]

~ almost 48 hours later ~

...or perhaps not.

Dude, you have no argument. For example, once the Panthers lost in 08, what did their high seed get them? Nothing. No championships, no awards. Even though they were seeded higher than others, their season came to a crashing end, just like everyone seeded lower. They failed to win when it mattered.

A high seed might help a team to get further in the playoffs. That is the point of a high seed. However, if the team squanders that high seed, they watch the next round on tv just like everyone else, with nothing to show for their high seed.

This is not a difficult point to grasp.

 

[DallasEast]

Dude, you have no argument. For example, once the Panthers lost in 08, what did their high seed get them? Nothing. No championships, no awards. Even though they were seeded higher than others, their season came to a crashing end, just like everyone seeded lower. They failed to win when it mattered.

A high seed might help a team to get further in the playoffs. That is the point of a high seed. However, if the team squanders that high seed, they watch the next round on tv just like everyone else, with nothing to show for their high seed.

This is not a difficult point to grasp.

Obviously, reading bold red print is difficult for you to grasp.

 

[Sammy Baugh]

Obviously, reading bold red print is difficult for you to grasp.

Ok, fine. The Pats ALONE in your argument did make it to the Super Bowl. But they did not win.

So the point remains, a number one seed which is squandered is irrelevant. See my Panthers comment. And then learn this rather simple point.

 

[DallasEast]

Ok, fine.

:laugh2:

The Pats ALONE in your argument did make it to the Super Bowl. But they did not win.

I never claimed that they beat the Giants. However, their seed wasn't irrelevant based upon your own proposed logic.

So the point remains, a number one seed which is squandered is irrelevant.

Yes. According to you, but not by many more outside of yourself.

See my Panthers comment.

Yeah. Your logic.

And then learn this rather simple point.

Oh please. You finally acknowledged the flaw in your own logic. Don't regress now.

 

[Tovya]

Think back to the Campo years. We weren't hated then. In fact, it was an odd blend of disgust and pity.

I don't know if it was so much pity as it was the punch line of jokes. If you are hated, you are being noticed--which means it's a reminder that our 'Boys are a threat to the rest of the NFL once again... and that feels real good.

 

[Sammy Baugh]

:laugh2:
I never claimed that they beat the Giants. However, their seed wasn't irrelevant based upon your own proposed logic.Yes. According to you, but not by many more outside of yourself.Yeah. Your logic.
Oh please. You finally acknowledged the flaw in your own logic. Don't regress now.

I understand our disconnect now: I remember the beginning of the discussion, you do not. So let's rehash.

I began the discussion by saying that the Cowboys #1 seed in 2007 was irrelevant because it was squandered. You responded by saying that this was an arrogant statement.

So let's examine more closely: the Patriots #1 seed in 2007 was (presumably) relevant because it (presumably) got them to the Super Bowl. In other words, the Pats #1 seed was not SQUANDERED. Notice the use of that term. The 07 Pats, therefore, are not at issue with my statement (although you brought them up anyway).

The Cowboys in 07 were different. They were one and done. So the number one seed did get them a bye and a home game, that is true, but in the longer term it got them nothing. Zero. Nada. Their top seed was SQUANDERED (note that word again). They participated in the next rounds of the playoffs the same way that I did - watching tv. Therefore their top seed was irrelevant, as it did not do what a top seed presumably does: get you to further rounds in the playoffs. Same thing for the 08 Panthers, as I already said.

So let's summarize: As we have seen, the Cowboys #1 seed in 07 was irrelevant because it was squandered. Saying so is not arrogance, it is simple truth.

Anything else?

 

[DallasEast]

No, a number one seed is not relevant when it is quickly squandered.

^^^ This is your original statement.

I understand our disconnect now: I remember the beginning of the discussion, you do not. So let's rehash.

I began the discussion by saying that the Cowboys #1 seed in 2007 was irrelevant because it was squandered. You responded by saying that this was an arrogant statement.

So let's examine more closely: the Patriots #1 seed in 2007 was (presumably) relevant because it (presumably) got them to the Super Bowl. In other words, the Pats #1 seed was not SQUANDERED. Notice the use of that term. The 07 Pats, therefore, are not at issue with my statement (although you brought them up anyway).

The Cowboys in 07 were different. They were one and done. So the number one seed did get them a bye and a home game, that is true, but in the longer term it got them nothing. Zero. Nada. Their top seed was SQUANDERED (note that word again). They participated in the next rounds of the playoffs the same way that I did - watching tv. Therefore their top seed was irrelevant, as it did not do what a top seed presumably does: get you to further rounds in the playoffs. Same thing for the 08 Panthers, as I already said.

So let's summarize: As we have seen, the Cowboys #1 seed in 07 was irrelevant because it was squandered. Saying so is not arrogance, it is simple truth.

Anything else?

Seeding is just that: seeding.

Should the number one seed lose, the next highest seed gains homefield advantage. Etc., etc. If your logic applies to the number one seed, it also applies to each subsequent lower yet highest remaining seed as well--with the sole exception being the lowest (#6) seed in the playoff field.