All aboard the Green Baynd Wagon.
- Thread starter EdFred
- Start date
Primo
fat and famous pablo
i'd be interested in seeing the results of this poll in 2000, then 2005 and now......
GB is easy to like.....fun to watch, entertaining games because of the high scores. I remember watching Dilfers Ravens...i really enjoyed it but most casual fans said "they're broing to watch' and cant appreciate a domination by the defense...they wanna see arena football. all they know is td's and scorebaord......seriously, that's all they know
GB is easy to like.....fun to watch, entertaining games because of the high scores. I remember watching Dilfers Ravens...i really enjoyed it but most casual fans said "they're broing to watch' and cant appreciate a domination by the defense...they wanna see arena football. all they know is td's and scorebaord......seriously, that's all they know
3XC
Big Truss
Fan Manifesto
- loyalty is inherited by patrilineal descent.
- only option for those who did not have a team devised to them by a male ancestor is root for the CLOSEST geographic team, measured by miles to the stadium in which that team hosts events.
- if the accused lives in a multi team market, or is equidistant between two teams, they may choose their loyalty no later than their 12th birthday. This choice is final.
- Exception: expansion and relocation
if the accused lives in a market which acquires a new team, due to expansion or relocation of another team, they may switch allegiances, provided it is done so in a timely manner.
Violation of any of these rules merits a strict scrutiny level of review. It is PRESUMED by this court that if the accused has an out of state loyalty, that they can prove patrilineal descent of loyalty or residence in the market of the favorite team. Burden of proof is on the accused.
Illustrative examples:
HH, a resident of the state of Missouri, is loyal to a team that plays in the State of Louisiana. HH must prove patrilineal descent of Saints fandom or proof or residence in the Saints media market.
D, a resident of Connecticut, lives roughly equidistant to the home venues of the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox. D has until age 12 to make a permanent, unshifting allegiance. Even if D does not waver, D can still be called a soulless ****bag for choosing the Yankees.
S, a resident of Texas, and fan of the Rangers, Stars, and Mavericks, chose the Steelers as his favorite NFL team prior to the age of 12. S never lived in Western PA, and S's father is a Cowboys fan. S is a bandwagon jumping douche.
- loyalty is inherited by patrilineal descent.
- only option for those who did not have a team devised to them by a male ancestor is root for the CLOSEST geographic team, measured by miles to the stadium in which that team hosts events.
- if the accused lives in a multi team market, or is equidistant between two teams, they may choose their loyalty no later than their 12th birthday. This choice is final.
- Exception: expansion and relocation
if the accused lives in a market which acquires a new team, due to expansion or relocation of another team, they may switch allegiances, provided it is done so in a timely manner.
Violation of any of these rules merits a strict scrutiny level of review. It is PRESUMED by this court that if the accused has an out of state loyalty, that they can prove patrilineal descent of loyalty or residence in the market of the favorite team. Burden of proof is on the accused.
Illustrative examples:
HH, a resident of the state of Missouri, is loyal to a team that plays in the State of Louisiana. HH must prove patrilineal descent of Saints fandom or proof or residence in the Saints media market.
D, a resident of Connecticut, lives roughly equidistant to the home venues of the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox. D has until age 12 to make a permanent, unshifting allegiance. Even if D does not waver, D can still be called a soulless ****bag for choosing the Yankees.
S, a resident of Texas, and fan of the Rangers, Stars, and Mavericks, chose the Steelers as his favorite NFL team prior to the age of 12. S never lived in Western PA, and S's father is a Cowboys fan. S is a bandwagon jumping douche.
gregbishere
Shutup just Shutup
James Starks is from Western NY and my teams suck, seems like all the ammo I need to jump Bills ship and on the bandwagon.
Peacock
DBOTY 2011
I grew up in suburban Boston. Was forced to wear Red Sox gear back in the day. But since I'm weird and a Satanist, my favorite teams are the Expos and the Devils. Never cared too much for football, but loved Steve Young because he's a lefty. Since green is my favorite color, I chose the Packers back in the early 90s. Basketball, I never GAF about.
EdFred
every day I'm shovelin'
Waiver exception?
X's father was a fan of a team from the state of TX, but his father never lived in Texas, and said father had never even been to Texas prior to his 30th birthday. At age 10 X moved and his choice was between the Green Bay Packers (closest by proximity) and The Detroit Lions (within the state). At age 12, X pledged allegiance to a team with the worst all-time winning percentage, never had a winning season, had never made the playoffs, and were 5-11 the previous year. His first purchased article of clothing for any sport (college or pro) was for said team after they finished last in the NFC West his first year as a fan.
Discuss.
mwcoed
Bus Driver
Kansas born, Texas middle schooled, Kansas again. Loyal since the 80s to the Saints, tats & all. Hell I drove from Wichita in 1993 to watch a MNF Saints game for my birthday in the dome (in a VW), just to watch them lose. I boo'd Wade Wilson & cheered for Mike Buck, still lost. Darn that little Megget. However I'm afraid to go out & get a Brees jersery because I don't wanna be thought of as a new Saints fan. 
EdFred
every day I'm shovelin'
Kansas born, Texas middle schooled, Kansas again. Loyal since the 80s to the Saints, tats & all. Hell I drove from Wichita in 1993 to watch a MNF Saints game for my birthday in the dome (in a VW), just to watch them lose. I boo'd Wade Wilson & cheered for Mike Buck, still lost. Darn that little Megget. However I'm afraid to go out & get a Brees jersery because I don't wanna be thought of as a new Saints fan.
You should see how dirty my Saints hats are. They are probably from around 1999 or 2000. They are utterly disgusting. I won't buy new ones for the same reason.
mwcoed
Bus Driver
Glad to see I ain't alone. I did buy the NFC Championship hat, but all my others are old. Told my gf I would let her buy me a Porter home jersey or a Brees away jersey, but I can't buy them myself.
3XC
Big Truss
Analysis:
The rule of bandwagoning states that in order for fandom to attach, S must have inherited a team from his father, or chosen a team prior to the age of 12 based on geographic proximity. When a minor lives in multiple areas prior to the age of 12, there is no case law extant that states specifically which team they have to cheer for. Therefore, it can be inferred that the option vests in S, so long as his choices were reasonably based on geography and not the success of the team. Courts may scrutinize the consistency of S in team choice, for example, if S roots for 3 sports teams from 3 separate markets from 3 places of residence, that may not shed a favorable light on S.
Conclusion:
So long as S has remained consistent in which teams he rooted for and the choice was made in good faith prior to the cutoff date of age 12, and the teams are from the same general market, S is not bandwagon.
Analysis:
The rule against bandwagoning states that teams are inherited from the father or assigned based on georgraphical proximity. Here petitioner (P) has made an admissible statement of fact regarding his geographic area. No mention is made of his fathers sports interests. It can be inferred that P made a conscious decision to root for teams outside his market for personal reasons, which is a violation of said rule.
P has two defenses against being violative of the rule. The first is the incompetence of the team. Based on past admissions, it can be inferred that P is close to 30 years of age. His years of team selection would then have fallen between 1990 and 1994, or thereabouts. Despite the overall woeful performance of the Expos over their franchise history, between 1992 and 1994 they were highly competitive and in fact led the NL East when the 1994 strike suspended play. In addition, the charsimatic and unique nature of an underdog blessed with sudden success usually adds to the bandwagon nature of a team (Lions v. Reality, 2010). The Devils of the early 1990s had great success with the neutral zone trap. Further exacerbating these choices is the lack of success shown by the home market Bruins and Red Sox between 1990 and 1994. The Packers were on the rise after the 1992 acquisition of Brett Favre, and by 1994 were an NFC playoff contender for the first time in many years. It is apparent to his observer that in spite of a commendable measure of loyalty displayed by P since the formative period, the selection of successful, "on the rise" teams around the age of 12 is indicative of bandwagon jumping
Conclusion:
P's defenses of loyalty and obscurity are invalid due to the success of his "Favorite" teams. P is on the wagon.
Mike11
master of swinging K's
Haha I'm same way! No player jerseys just saints shirts. The wife has been trying to get me one for about five years and I always held out. Then in 2009 I didn't want to jinx it or look like a fair weather fan lol
Saints
Atlanta Braves (my grandpa was a braves fan and watched every game when they were on TBS)
Detroit Pistons (don't know why but just liked them when they were fighting with lakers/celtics in the 80's and Stuck with them) started liking the Magic when they were expansion team and Shaq played there
Last edited:
3XC
Big Truss
Analysis:
The rule of bandwagoning states that in order for fandom to attach, S must have inherited a team from his father, or chosen a team prior to the age of 12 based on geographic proximity. In this instance, the father could have passed loyalty of a Texas team to petitioner, because bandwagoning is not devisable. The rule makes no mention of inherited disloyalty, rather courts have held that even if the father shifts loyalties or abandons his team, a good faith transfer made to a male child prior to the age of 12 vests the child with legitimate fandom (Namath. v. Bishere, 1970)
Here petitioner did not inherit fandom and chose a team based on non-geographic criteria. The valid defenses against bandwagoning are the obscurity of the team, and the relative success of the team in question. In addition, X must show an unwavering, lifetime loyalty to the same team if chosen from outside his home market.
Obscurity:
The Saints of the 1970s were one of the least successful, least popular teams in the NFL. Although "lovable loser" defenses in and of themselves are rarely successful, the obscurity of the team and size of its fan base are relevant and admissible. The Cubs rule may apply here, which is a two step analysis:
Is the team nationally popular, and
Is the teams lack of success contributory to said popularity.
Here the history shows that the Saints were both unpopular and that their lack of success made them even less popular. The defense may be valid in this instance.
Loyalty:
No evidence in the fact pattern indicates that X has ever wavered or shifted loyalties towards the Saints. Although the burden of proof is on X to create a rebuttable presumption that he did not abandon his team during the intervening period, the success of the Rickey Jackson Saints, compounded with the recent glory of the Payton/Brees Saints, indicate that X may have a rational claim to have never abandoned his team.
Conclusion:
Although X made a "jump" prior to the age of 12 that is violative of the rule against bandwagoning, X has met the criteria for the valid defense of rooting for an obscure, terrible team and never changing loyalties. X is therefore not a wagoner.
hbwb
~~~~~~~~~~~~
You me 3 know good football.
Finally coming out of the closet, or just coming to terms with yourself?
3XC
Big Truss
11 years ago the bandwagon had third row cupholders.
Baseball is still the worst, because teams don't really go up and down as much. The same 6 teams seem to hang around 90 wins, and if they have an off year, its like 85 wins, and if they have a good year, its like 95 wins. The long season really soaks up hot and cold streaks, and the more talented teams (the ones that can afford to land free agents) just buy their wins.
In that regard, the bandwagoners are more persistent, and therefore more annoying.
Baseball is still the worst, because teams don't really go up and down as much. The same 6 teams seem to hang around 90 wins, and if they have an off year, its like 85 wins, and if they have a good year, its like 95 wins. The long season really soaks up hot and cold streaks, and the more talented teams (the ones that can afford to land free agents) just buy their wins.
In that regard, the bandwagoners are more persistent, and therefore more annoying.
3XC
Big Truss
The longer two answers were about half as long as my bar exam answers will be. I have 25 minutes per question to read, analyze, outline, and write my answer.
Thats why I have the advantage of being able to type really fast. All the time spend on here was my unwitting practice. I can spend more time carefully poring over the fact pattern and outlining my response, and then hammer out the answer in half the time of even the fastest handwriter.