The NFL battle for the State for Texas!

[LBC_Justin]

The Cowboys have a great past, superbowl rings, and a ton of fans, and have the title of "America's team".

well thats great for them.

But, if the Cowboys continue their down slide and the Texans continue to improve I think in a few years the Texans could become "Texas' Team". And control the fan base in Austin, San Antonio, and the rest of the state outside of the DFW area.

Why were the Cowboy more popular than the Oilers in Texas?
1. They won superbowl rings.
2. the name "Cowboys" gave pride to the entire state, while Oilers was really only a Houston Only kind of pride.
3. If you are a Texan how can you not root for the Texans? Isn't that written into the law some where? The new name will go a long way.

PS: I was at the University of Texas vs University Michigan Rose bowl game and saw several people sporting Texans gear. I saw ZERO people wearing Cowboy gear. Great game BTW.

[OzzO]

Why were the Cowboys more popular? I'll add some....
4. More national exposure (yeah, I know you specified Texas)
5. Tex Schramm vs. Bud Adams
6. Landry vs.... <all except Bum>

As for becoming Texas' team... if it comes in time, fine - but most of us can say "we were there at the beginning" and mean it.

[crazy4u310]

I have no connection to the state of Texans and I'm still a Texans fan.

[HJam72]

The Texans have a real shot at taking over as the favorite in Texas, but they will never be the favorite like "America's team" was when there was no salary cap and they were buying Super Bowl rings. They were the Yankees of the NFL--at least in the 90s.

Now things are fair and I want it to stay that way.

Some day they'll have a league in some sport where one team spends way more than anyone else, EVERYONE roots for that one team, and that one team is always undefeated with no competition at all. Oh, I forgot. They already have the Harlem Globe Prancers.

[nunusguy]

The single biggest advantage the Cowboys have is playing in a divison which
has a New York based team. But as we all know, New York is the media (Print, TV, etc.) capital of the country. The Cowboys, for decades now, have placed the Giants twice a year, every year, and they are the beneficiaries of tremdous amounts of media attention by virture of being the Giants opponents. There are other, important reasons but none that compare
to having the advantage of the NY producing gobs of pub.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by HJam72

The Texans have a real shot at taking over as the favorite in Texas, but they will never be the favorite like "America's team" was when there was no salary cap and they were buying Super Bowl rings. They were the Yankees of the NFL--at least in the 90s.

At least get your hate correct. The Cowboys became America's team--not their term by the way, made up by the guys at NFL Films--during the late 70's because they already had a national draw and national merchandizing sales. Try checking out when the Dallas Cowboy cheerleader movies and all the Dallas Cowboy Love Boat episodes were made--it wasn't the '90's. Also, would love to see anything that said the Cowboys were spending any more money in the early '90's than their chief competitor the 49'ers or for that matter the Bills or Steelers. By the way, how many teams do you know of that would wait 6 years for a draft pick to fulfill a military service committment?

Originally Posted by nunusguy

The single biggest advantage the Cowboys have is playing in a divison which has a New York based team.

Mmmm, not buying that. Six other teams had the same advantage. Neither New York team has ever drawn the attention the Cowboys have or any of the other six.

[aj.]

Something to remember when comparing franchises, the Cowboys didn't have a winning record until their 7th season. Different era notwithstanding, just imagine if Tex would have pulled the plug on Landry after year 4 or 5 because they weren't winning. . .

[HJam72]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

At least get your hate correct. The Cowboys became America's team--not their term by the way, made up by the guys at NFL Films--during the late 70's because they already had a national draw and national merchandizing sales. Try checking out when the Dallas Cowboy cheerleader movies and all the Dallas Cowboy Love Boat episodes were made--it wasn't the '90's. Also, would love to see anything that said the Cowboys were spending any more money in the early '90's than their chief competitor the 49'ers or for that matter the Bills or Steelers. By the way, how many teams do you know of that would wait 6 years for a draft pick to fulfill a military service committment?

I knew all of this already, except that I'm not sure what the answer is to that last question. I was under the impression that they didn't have a choice in the matter, but whatever, kudos if they chose it that way. I just don't like disproportionate team salaries in sports, period. Dallas did more with all that spending than those other teams--well, over a 3 decade long era, anyway, but I
HATE dissproportionate team salaries. I can't stand the Yankees either, although the Dodgers and Orioles also spend a lot of money and don't win like they do. When the playing field is obviously unfair and the winner is one of those who C-H-E-A-T, in my oppinion, I'm going to inevitably hate that team.

We now have a fair playing field, the best I can tell anyway, and the Patriots have won 2 out of the last 3 superbowls. Now they deserve credit. I hope they lose very soon, because I don't want to see any dynasties, preferably, but they do deserve credit.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by HJam72

I was under the impression that they didn't have a choice in the matter, but whatever, kudos if they chose it that way.

Sure they did--don't draft him and draft another QB.

I just don't like disproportionate team salaries in sports, period. Dallas did more with all that spending than those other teams--well, over a 3 decade long era,

You are the first person I have ever heard say this. Give us some support for the fact that the Cowboys were the biggest spenders for 3 decades, heck pick a decade and show that is true. Salaries weren't the driving force from the 50's through mid 80's, the draft was--hence players with the same teams throughout their entire careers. Just not buying this one until I see some support.

[nunusguy]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

Mmmm, not buying that. Six other teams had the same advantage. Neither New York team has ever drawn the attention the Cowboys have or any of the other six.

It's not the only thing the Cowboys had going for them, but I think its the
most important. I've read a lot of stories about Tex Schramm wining & dining
the NY media when they came to Dallas for a game, and they put Dallas on the map. I mean way back then, Texas really was the boondocks - of course NYs still think it is.

[HJam72]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

Sure they did--don't draft him and draft another QB.



You are the first person I have ever heard say this. Give us some support for the fact that the Cowboys were the biggest spenders for 3 decades, heck pick a decade and show that is true. Salaries weren't the driving force from the 50's through mid 80's, the draft was--hence players with the same teams throughout their entire careers. Just not buying this one until I see some support.

Fine, so they hadn't already drafted him.

I misunderstood you statement about Steelers and Bills. You said Steelers and I thought you meant 70's, hence 70's, 80's, and 90's (which I am sure about). Look, what it comes down to with me is that I was a Cowboys fan at one time (we're talking like 10 yrs. old here), but I knew nothing about the MONEY factor in sports (apparently, it wasn't a factor back then, anyway). As I got older, I started seeing the dissproportionate team salaries and the way the media is with hyping players who play on one coast or the other (see Vilma vs. Robinson). I got so sick of Lakers this and Yankees that and Braves and Cowboys and 49ers. It is interesting that the most famous football team doesn't play in NY (they do play against NY) or LA. If Dallas did it without money being the factor at one time, that's great; but, I know of 3 Super Bowls that were BOUGHT. I don't hate Cowboy fans or the players (well, some of the ex-players were pretty bad). I just hate the team as an entity. The team was the most successfull of the "cheaters" for a while there.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by HJam72

I know of 3 Super Bowls that were BOUGHT.

Sorry, but you and we don't KNOW of 3 super bowls that were bought until you present something showing their payroll was significantly higher than the other teams in that time period. Much easier, much better explanation IMO for the Cowboys' domination in that period is the fantastic sucker trade for Herschel Walker, good drafting (taking the too small, too slow Emmitt Smith for example), great coaching concentrating on a fast turnover focused D and heavy pound it out O and a great OL coach.

[HJam72]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

Sorry, but you and we don't KNOW of 3 super bowls that were bought until you present something showing their payroll was significantly higher than the other teams in that time period. Much easier, much better explanation IMO for the Cowboys' domination in that period is the fantastic sucker trade for Herschel Walker, good drafting (taking the too small, too slow Emmitt Smith for example), great coaching concentrating on a fast turnover focused D and heavy pound it out O and a great OL coach.

Superbowls 27, 28, and 30 were in the 90's and they were spending significantly more than most teams in the NFL. Otherwise, you'd have to go all the way back to SB 13 to see them with a SB win, not that I'm putting them down for that. That fast turnover focused D wouldn't have been so fast or turnover focused with less money spent and neither would the heavy pound it out O been so heavy or good at pounding it out. I know there were other teams in the 90s that spent just as much. I know for sure of at least one, anyway (49ers) and Dallas did more than any of the other big spenders. I don't know if you caught it or not, but I admitted that I was wrong about money being the issue before the 90's; I thought I was hearing that from you, actually, but I wasn't. I'm not going to give you specific numbers to prove Dallas spent more than most NFL teams in the 90's. That's just rediculously unnecessary. They did and anyone who follows the NFL with any regularity at all knows that. Yes, they outdid San Fran. and whoever else was spending as much--I guess Pitt and Buffalo--but they bought their way past a lot of other teams that just didn't have it to spend.

When people used to casually ask me who would win in some Dallas game, like they all ask each other too, I would say, "Dallas will win, of course, because they spent the most money on the biggest, fattest offensive line in the world." When San Fran. played Dallas in the NFC Championship like what 9 freakin' times in a row, people would ask me who I'm rooting for and I would say, "Oh....I hope they both lose." What we're really talking about here is my opinion of the Cowboys and the fact that I hope they go 0-16 next year. I'm not going to change my mind about that. Not anytime soon. You know, the Yankees fans will always point to teams like the Dodgers and Orioles and say that at least the Yankees win and don't just spend money and still lose. That's true. No doubt about it. But, I still hate the Yankees. You wanna know who my favorite all-time coach is? Tom Laundry. Keep the salary cap for about 5 more years and I'll probably lose my distaste for Dallas, but I wanna see an equal playing field; oh, and the Texans will always be #1 in my book, anyway.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by HJam72

I'm not going to give you specific numbers to prove Dallas spent more than most NFL teams in the 90's. That's just rediculously unnecessary. They did and anyone who follows the NFL with any regularity at all knows that.

Hey, I don't care if you like Dallas or not--99% of Houston fans don't--whatever. But seems to me if you are going to assert something like this that is SO obvious to anyone who follows the NFL, it would be easy to substantiate. Frankly, declining to do so is a concession that it can't be done IMO.

What we're really talking about here is my opinion of the Cowboys and the fact that I hope they go 0-16 next year. I'm not going to change my mind about that.

That sums it up nicely. Facts be damned, that is your opinion.

[WWJD]

Yea I'd be really interested to see how the Cowboys bought all their SB victories with their billion dollar payroll.

[Yankee_In_TX]

Originally Posted by LBC_Justin

PS: I was at the University of Texas vs University Michigan Rose bowl game and saw several people sporting Texans gear. I saw ZERO people wearing Cowboy gear. Great game BTW.

I love my Texans, but that somewhatly annoys me. Lindsay pointed out Texas is a free for all at sporting events. You go to ANY sport you see and you'll see some of all of these: UT, A&M, Astros, Texans, Aeros, Cowboys, out of state teams, etc, shirts and jerseys (in one game).

IMO, wear your teams colors or dress normal. No need for a Rocket's jersey at a Texans game.

[TexanAlmighty]

Who cares about Dallas? Hope they go 0-16 for all I care.

[LBC_Justin]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

The single biggest advantage the Cowboys have is playing in a divison which
has a New York based team. But as we all know, New York is the media (Print, TV, etc.) capital of the country. The Cowboys, for decades now, have placed the Giants twice a year, every year, and they are the beneficiaries of tremdous amounts of media attention by virture of being the Giants opponents. There are other, important reasons but none that compare
to having the advantage of the NY producing gobs of pub.

I think you made a HUGE point here.

One of the Texans biggest obstacles is the division they play in:

NFC EAST
New York
Washington
Philly
Dallas
(All larger market teams w/ huge followings.)

AFC SOUTH
Houston
Tennessee
Indy
Jacksonville
(Houston is by far the largest market team in this division and other than the colts NONE of these teams come close commanding any kind of national exposure.)

Lets all pray that Los Angeles gets one of the teams in our division. Hmmm the LA Jaguars has a nice ring to it. (Plus I live in LA area and would get to actually see the Texans on TV at least twice a year then.)

[WWJD]

I believe the Titans were on two MNF games this year. I'd call that "national exposure".

The plain truth is yes it helps to have national exposure but much of the success of a team is in marketing, how well the team has played over the life of the team, championships, big name players etc.

Example: Pittsburgh has a huge following. That is hardly the "biggest" market in the country. The team has been very successful though and they market well. They can play a game in San Diego and have many, many fans in the stands. Their old championship players are household names. They have the yellow towels. They did the job on/off the field to make fans.

If this "NY" theory was true the NY teams would be the most popular by far because it's the biggest market. They are not the most popular teams although they certainly have a national following.

IMO it's winning and marketing that cultivates fans.

[aj.]

Originally Posted by HJam72:
Superbowls 27, 28, and 30 were in the 90's and they were spending significantly more than most teams in the NFL. .... I'm not going to give you specific numbers to prove Dallas spent more than most NFL teams in the 90's. That's just rediculously unnecessary. They did and anyone who follows the NFL with any regularity at all knows that.

“(Jerry Jones’) Cowboys … won the 1993 Super Bowl with the youngest roster in the NFL and a player payroll ranked 24th out of 28 teams.”

From: Inc. Magazine, Dec 1993 | By: David Whitford

.