FanDuel - WFBC

October 25, 2010

Tony Romo out with a broken collarbone: Romo looks to be out 8 to 10 weeks, and the Cowboys look to be done for the year.

posted by dviking to football at 11:29 PM - 21 comments

They are a miserable team to watch, Romo or no Romo.

posted by justgary at 01:09 AM on October 26

Kitna is prepared to demonstrate new levels of misery

posted by kokaku at 03:24 AM on October 26

They played like they were done long before Romo was injured.

posted by roberts at 07:23 AM on October 26

put a f*&k in them...that's fork BTW...

posted by wildbill1 at 07:33 AM on October 26

It's weird how Romo's injury caused the defense to go into catatonic shock.

I'm beginning to think the Cowboys might not play in the Super Bowl in Dallas this year.

posted by rcade at 09:17 AM on October 26

I am not saying that the Cowboys are trolling for quarterbacks, but I just got a call from Jerry Jones asking if I was available for Sunday. Anyone know what this is about?

posted by Demophon at 09:42 AM on October 26

I am not saying that the Cowboys are trolling for quarterbacks, but I just got a call from Jerry Jones asking if I was available for Sunday. Anyone know what this is about?

I'm not sure, but I think that happened before I got a call from Jerry asking if I can be head coach next year.....

posted by NerfballPro at 09:47 AM on October 26

I'm beginning to think the Cowboys might not play in the Super Bowl in Dallas this year.

My magic 8 ball says: You may rely on it.

posted by bperk at 10:00 AM on October 26

Given the state of affairs in the U.S., maybe Dallas really is America's team.

posted by cjets at 10:00 AM on October 26

cjets, ouch!

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:18 AM on October 26

Given the state of affairs in the U.S., maybe Dallas really is America's team.

Well put.

posted by dyams at 10:49 AM on October 26

To be fair, I do think the U.S. is capable of going 9-1. Not so much the Cowboys.

posted by cjets at 11:02 AM on October 26

cjets, did you leave off the 1 in 9-1-1?

posted by kokaku at 12:59 PM on October 26

I'm beginning to think the Cowboys might not play in the Super Bowl in Dallas this year.

For some strange reason, I was thinking the same thing. I got to hear a ton of trash talk from my Jints lovin' cousin last night and it sucked very, very badly.

posted by BornIcon at 01:58 PM on October 26

Always happy to see the Boys lose, but would rather watch it happen with Romo on the field. Good news is, he should be back in time for the play...oh, right. Better luck next year.

posted by Andy1087 at 02:40 PM on October 26

Good news is, he should be back in time for the play...oh, right. Better luck next year.

Thanks for rubbing it in. At least we'll have the Super Bowl in the new stadium... Yaaaaaay!

sigh!

posted by BornIcon at 03:01 PM on October 26

In a bored moment at work, I was thinking about the fact that an NFL team has never played a Super Bowl in their home stadium. With 44 chances you would think it would have happened at least once. The closest would be 1985 when the 49ers played in Stanford Stadium and 1980 when the Rams played in the Rose Bowl. This made me wonder if there was a Super Bowl Host curse. I went back and compared the records for teams the year that they hosted a Super Bowl* to the year prior. I was really surprised to find that despite a couple of teams having wild fluctuations in their records for the most part the Super Bowl host just mostly were really terrible teams both the year before hosting and the year of hosting. Not accounting for the increase in number of games, the average record before hosting was just over 7 wins (7.10) against just over 8 (8.12) loses, while the average the year of hosting was just under 7 (6.79) wins against 8 (8.36) losses. Even the average for place in the standing remained fairly constant at 3rd place (3.05 to 3.23). To help compare across the change in number of games I also compared winning percentage and found that there the change was .463 to .446. Based on all of that, all I could really come to conclude was that there have been a lot of really terrible teams playing in the warm weather sites that the NFL uses for the Super Bowl. Hopefully the time you have spent reading this was less than the time I wasted doing this exercise.


* I assigned the Rams as the host for the Rose Bowl and the 49ers as the host in Stanford, which puts a hole in the no one has hosted claim, but they were the closest teams, what can you do. You could argue that the Raiders were in LA from 82-94, but I went with the Rams since they would have been the team for the games in the 70's and felt that offered a bit of consistency. If you don't like you can waste the time I did and do it all over yourself and put the Raiders in LA for the 3 years in question.

posted by Demophon at 05:00 PM on October 26

Cowboys got it figured out:

Who wants to work during the Super Bowl anyway?

posted by graymatters at 06:01 PM on October 26

*applauds demophon*

Comment of the month!

posted by Joey Michaels at 06:06 PM on October 26

Based on all of that, all I could really come to conclude was that there have been a lot of really terrible teams playing in the warm weather sites that the NFL uses for the Super Bowl.

The Bucs fit this bill. I thought they were close when they won their Super Bowl, but Tampa hosted two years before the Bucs were in it. Another way to look at it is that the NFL wants to throw a bone to the least successful teams to keep them happy by letting them host a Super Bowl.

posted by bperk at 09:49 AM on October 27

In a bored moment at work, I was thinking about the fact that an NFL team has never played a Super Bowl in their home stadium. With 44 chances you would think it would have happened at least once.

...except that there are an awful lot of stadiums where the Super Bowl will never be played (because it's too coooooold, call the waaaaaahmbulance), so that undercuts the whole exercise.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:52 AM on October 27

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.